MtnGoat
-
Posts
739 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MtnGoat
-
-
"What's Saddam going to do, drive a boat to within 20 miles of 30 countries (or was it within 30 miles of 20 countries?) and hope one of his missiles lands in a city?"
Doesn't need to. One bottle, one barrel, traded off to some very bad folks, or many traded off to many, and all they need to do is get one somewhere with someone willing to pop the cork, and somewhere a lot of people in a mall, a stadium, a school, or a subway die in really nasty ways.
Saddam doesn't need rocket launchers or submarines, all he needs is to know nasty people, which he does, and give them a few pounds of something really bad.
-
"So, M-Goat; as Iraqi civilians start suffering and slowly dying of dehydration and malnutrition due to a decimated infrastructure (not to mention who knows how many civilian dead already as a direct result of bombs), is that better than people suffering and dying from chemical weapons?"
Yup. When they suffer and die from chemical weapons, they're pretty much toast. You fix dehyrdration and starvation with a magical elixer called "water" and another called "food" and in a short while, usually, you're OK.
We can feed them even without their infrastructure, and further, since they have been existing with a very limited infrastructure to begin with, with simple markets and person to person trading, rebuilding a basic system merely requires water, and electricity, and most important, stability.
"Suffering and dying in the name of "freedom" and "disarmament" is still, if DFA is not mistaken, suffering and dying, and the fact that they're dying for "freedom" and "disarmament" might be irrelevant to those who are doing the suffering and the dying. "
You are correct.
"Is it really worth it?"
Since when this round of difficulties is over, the suffering and dying they've been doing under Saddam will be at an end, I would think the answer is largely, yes. We're not living in a perfect world, this isn't a situation where we're comparing perfect and imperfect, it's one where there's bad, and worse.
If the UN had had it's way, the Iraquis would have continued to die in executions, prisons, torture, and yes, starvation, beyond this war, every day, and every week, into May, June, July, August, Sept, the fall, 2004, 2005, and off into the forseeable future. Once this current hell is over, that's all done. No more sanctions. No more torture. No more secret police.
-
since their criminal behavior makes the criminal behavior of protestors OK, I guess that makes the criminal behavior of those beating up war protestors, ok. Great point! Instead of taking the high road, take the "two wrongs make a right" one. Nice.
-
20 warheads of a banned material is the same as 1 of them. The material is banned, it's possession violates the ceasefire, and the ability of what it is loaded onto, to go any distance is irrelevent. Because the substances are banned. It's not complicated.
-
"Again, no proof exists that Iraq sponsors terrorism."
False. Saddam proudly signed checks to the families of Islamic suicide bombers as bounties for killing Israelis. Saddam was a known supporter of Abu Nidal and provided cash, training, and sanctuary for him.
The only proof we don't have is any direct ties to Al Queda, and I'll be surprised if that doesn't turn up too.
"Just to clarify your stance, are you saying that only the U.S. should be allowed to produce WMD and that any other country that produces WMD should be invaded, er, liberated?"
The US and other signatory nations are in the process of destroying, verifiably, all bio and chemical weapons stocks.
You do not see us demanding France or England disarm, and they have nukes.
"Any credbility that the U.N. may have had was completely eradicated the day the U.S. & Britain set foot in Iraq."
Entirely true. And of their own making. That they would not carry out the hammer part of their own resolutions made them useless and pointless.
"That organization has been rendered irrelevant by these 2 countries ignoring the opinion and will of the democratized world and doing whatever the fuck they want."
That organization has been near useless for decades and it's performance in the last 15 years has sealed it's decline. It's now a debating society, which is more interested in having everyone debating, than actually making right decisions. The fact that Iraq was about to head up the disarmament branch is a case in point.
-
"Does that mean it's also justified to topple the governments of China, N. Korea, Cuba, and all Arab nations in the name of liberation from oppression?"
Not unless they present a threat to the security of the US and it's citizens.
"Where does this end?"
When nations do not present a danger to us and we have normalized relations with them so we can discuss with trust things we disagree on. You don't see us bombing france, or germany, or Sweden, or Turkey simply because they disagree. We get along fine with lots of nations we don't agree with.
"Is the lesson to be learned "If we don't agree with you, consider yourself fucked and prepare for liberation muthafucka."?"
No, it's "if you a part of the islamo fascist support system, and you have no track record of working with us on this, and show no signs of changing, and possess ties with suicide bombing organizations and the means to make their attacks far more lethal, and you're a madman who can't be trusted, you'd better think twice". It's pretty straightforwards.
-
"I really do feel terrible for those poor people, but who are we to judge the rest of the world and assert our morals and ideals?"
You have no problem judging the US. You have no problem judging it's political parties, or the actions of it's citizens, or deciding they should follow morals and ideals you support the imposition of by force.
Why doesn't your respect for the choices of people in other places, extend to your neighbor?
-
"On the other hand, if the U.S. controls the oil wells, it's therefore part of OPEC and thus the laws of supply and demand don't apply."
The US is not an OPEC nation.
"When you are a cartel, you control the supply and pricing."
Of the oil in your cartel. You do not control the pricing of those not in your cartel.
"Supply and demand only works in an open market."
There are many other oil producing nations not in OPEC. The existence of multiple sources means OPEC is not in control of the pricing.
"Got any other "justification"?"
I don't believe I provided any, nor need to. Oil is not a justification for this war, as I've demonstrated. If oil was the goal, why not just eliminate the sanctions? What will happen to your theory when the oilfields remain owned by Iraq?
-
"what about getting back to the topic? what is it that they found?"
Warheads filled with Sarin and other treats.
The guy who keeps repeating "pesticides" is a prime example of why some people did not accept that this possession was already proven, and then ignored, by the UN. No matter what turns up, no proof is enough.
-
"Are we talking about the same thing here? 'Cos this is what I'm talking about..."
No, I'm talking about the missiles found, posted in the starting post for this thread.
-
"How the do you know it's not all about oil? Do you have some inside track that the rest of us don't?"
For one thing, increased oil supplies mean lower chances of high prices, which isn't something a profit driven oil company would be interested in. Especially since the number of economic reserves *increases* as oil prices go up and marginal fields become valuable, thus increasing supply and placing downward pressure on prices again.
Secondly, if we wanted the oil, it would be far easier, and cheaper, to simply press to drop the sanctions.
-
"I believe MtnGoat is a Libertarian, which is not the same thing as conservative, though there will be some opinion overlap. Perhaps you meant to say MtnGoat is pro Iraq war. "
Thanks for the deft correction, Off White. May not agree with you often, but you're always a decent debate target.
Think of me as a conservilib, or a liberservative.
In any case, when a guy like Saddam has ties to Islamofacism, has violated the conditions of his ceasefire for 12 years, will do anything to anyone, and has weapons like these, yes, it's time to take him out.
-
"wouldn't want you conservatives bickering among yourselves. you need all the brain power you can muster to launch insults at anti-war pansies like me."
I doesn't take but a fraction of a brain's power to take care of that very effectively!
-
"Just want to point out that the "smoking gun" they found was nothing more than pesticide."
You mean missiles containing Sarin are filled with pesticides? Weird. That's a hell of a pesticide, I guess it depends on how one defines pests!
"Until they find WMD, they're going to have a hard time convincing liberal wankers like me that the war was justified."
Does this mean that since they've found them, you can now be convinced? Doesn't look like it, since you're not noticing they *are* finding WMD right now.
-
"China, Egypt, Syria, Israel, Iran, and North Korea are also suspected of having undeclared stockpiles of chemical weapons. "
Since we have relations with China, Egypt and Israel, there are other ways of dealing with this. N Korea is more problematic, but it, Iran, and Syria are next on the list, and justifiably so.
"Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, and India are also suspected of having chemical weapons facilities or capabilites."
Apply the above to whichever of these nations the former couple conditions apply to. To those we can work with in good faith, given our own proven record of destruction of our stockpiles, fully inspected and documented, great. To those who do not, and who participate in support Islamic fascism, they'll need a different route.
-
wow, the CIA is now planting 20 or 30 foot long missiles full of poison gas to make the Saddam look like a bad guy!
Time for the backpedaling to begin! "We never said he didn't have chemical weapons"........"everyone always knew"......" we were only asking for proof of proof"..... just a few suggestions for starters. In a few years, you'll not find a soul who will admit anything else.
Reuters
Monday, April 7, 2003; 10:25 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. forces near Baghdad found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons, the U.S. news station National Public Radio reported on Monday.
NPR, which attributed the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division, said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire." It quoted the source as saying new U.S. intelligence data showed the chemicals were "not just trace elements."
It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.
U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment.
The United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies having such weapons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47645-2003Apr7.html
-
"I'm glad you have such a high opinion of our work in Afghanistan. Care to share your sources?"
The Taliban no longer runs Afhghanistan. Source: Reality.
"I'm glad you have such a high opinion of our work against Al Qaeda. Care to share your sources?"
Al Queda no longer has safe haven in Afghanistan, or anywhere else they are known to be operating, their assets are seized, operatives killed or arrested, and the network's initial formation is dispersed. That's a pretty good start.
Like everything in the real world, total perfection in eliminating them is problematic, and the complaints of those who expect unrealistic results are usually to make political points. Nonetheless, the progress so far has been satisfactory to me.
Source: extensive reading. I'll not play the game on providing sources to be ignored, it serves no one since no one changes their minds here anyway.
-
"And this is still shrubs little vendetta, do you think that Gore would have attacked Iraq? "
Course not. Gore (like Clinton) would have allowed attacks on the US to continue, without any substantive response, save some groveling in the general direction of Europe so France and Germany would like us and maybe some real strong words for Afghanistan. Count on it, if Gore was in charge the Taliban would still rule Afghanistan and Al Queda would still be a viable force.
-
yes, prepare for a lot of backpedaling and prevarication on what their demands for "proof" really meant. Should be highly entertaining.
-
Iraq has chemical weapons? They've sworn they don't, and that should be good enough, right?
-
the idea there's no proof is pretty funny. I'm not sure what would constitute proof for many save lots of dead people in NY or London, at which point the propents of said "proof" go gee, why didn't you take action? Connect the dots in advance given clear evidence, there's not enough "proof" for them, wait too long, it's why didn't you know? Can't win.
The proof needed already exists. Iraq was known by UN inspectors to have stockpiles of thousands of tons at the time the UN was ejected in 98. Iraq itself admitted possession of weaponized anthrax around that time. This constitutes proof of the existense of these weapons.
The second fact is physical items do not just vanish. If they are known to exist, two options and two options only then exist. One, the weapons are destroyed, two, they still exist. If there are destroyed, it's easily proven by providing access to the places and people who destroyed them, since all these things leave verifiable chemical residues. But no, no evidence of destruction has been provided. That leaves us at the other option, they still exist.
-
"BTW, where did Iraq get all of the seed cultures for their BIO weapons program?"
From suppliers who keep such cultures on hand for bio research. This is the problem with "dual use" materials. Iraq has a large agricultural population, and livestock diseases are a legitimate concern for folks actually interested in agricultural research.
Many countries with pharmaceutical industries do research on diseases because you can't develop chemicals and cures without the diseases themselves. Lest we forget, anthrax is a livestock disease.
The other point is that for any disease still extant in the natural world, there is no actual method of controlling who gets the materials for seeding cultures. It's common to assume anthrax only comes from seed stock if you've been reading too many articles from the Nation or some other such outfit. The fact is, anthrax can be found anywhere there are livestock in the proper conditions. All that's needed is to find an outbreak and go get a carcass, a live specimen with the desired disease, or a soil sample, depending on the disease of course.
Making "where did they get the anthrax" an argument for some kind of complicity, ignores the normal practices of researchers all over the world, who do *not* weaponize what they get but actually use it for legitimate research. As well as the fact that anyone who wants it bad enough merely need find an outbreak to get some anyway and begin doing their own seed cultures and weaponized mutations.
-
Someone mentioned grazing was permitted in the Ochacco range in oregon. What part of oregon is that in?
-
I knew you guys would like that ad.......That's why I kicked in to help pay for it! Free speech and all, you know how it is.
Report: U.S. Finds Missiles with Chemical Weapons
in Spray
Posted
"What are you anti-war people thinking now that the civilians in baghdad are celebrating the US involvement?"
They'll be kvetching and wondering why they're on the wrong side of history when it comes to standing up to socialist regimes which take their own people to basements full of torture gear...... the left has once again screwed the pooch ragged.
Now of course they'll all say they didn't support Saddam, that's been the fallback all along. But they did just want to be so careful he stayed around for a few more years at least, and then got the opportunity to turn over his personal playground to one of his psychopathic kids.
A lot of folks constantly told us this wasn't in their name, and we can make sure the Iraquis know who, as we do, who didn't support getting rid of Saddam *now*.
NO more delay, no more allowing Saddam to run rings around western hand wringers with full intent.