mattp Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 Good luck. I hear they send out a couple of decoys, while the snipers hang back in the bushes. Wear your body armor or else just drop bombs from 30,000 feet. [ 10-01-2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: mattp ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 Shrapnel from the bombs damages too much meat, Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted October 1, 2002 Author Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: quote:Originally posted by Dr Flash Amazing: Ah, but perhaps the best solution to the problem lies in some sort of diplomacy rather than dropping bombs and annihilating innocent civilians, which is pretty much a certainty given Saddam's habit of placing his military installations near civilians? Haven't you figured out that diplomacy doesn't work with this guy? How do you practice diplomacy with a pathological liar? Okay, I'm not in a position to certify Saddam as pathological. However, he has proven that we cannot take him at his word; diplomacy relies on a certain amount of trust that both parties will honor what is agreed to. Do we let him continue to stonewall us while he moves his weapons factories? How long do we wait when experts say that he is between 4-12 months from a workable bomb? greg you use the word pathological liar....you are atalking about all involved parties right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 "Shrapnel from the bombs damages too much meat, Matt" But not too many civilians.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 "Haven't you figured out that diplomacy doesn't work with this guy? How do you practice diplomacy with a pathological liar? Okay, I'm not in a position to certify Saddam as pathological. However, he has proven that we cannot take him at his word; diplomacy relies on a certain amount of trust that both parties will honor what is agreed to." So can you tell me what you found deceitful in Saddam's behaviour? Just curious.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by mattp: Good luck. I hear they send out a couple of decoys, while the snipers hang back in the bushes. Wear your body armor or else just drop bombs from 30,000 feet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by erik: ....you are atalking about all involved parties right?You cynical bastard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by sexual chocolate: behaviour What is this, Cambridge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 Erik - Point taken. My point was that Saddam has done this before: says the inspectors can come and then cancels or stonewalls at the last minute. This is for you, too, SC. Under the terms of surrender after Desert Storm, Saddam agreed to unrestricted UN weapons inspections; he repeatedly thwarted those inspections. Why should we think he won't do the same thing again? The old adage, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me", seems fitting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by iain: quote:Originally posted by sexual chocolate: behaviour What is this, Cambridge? Oh, and next you'll be in favor of ebonics, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by sexual chocolate: "Shrapnel from the bombs damages too much meat, Matt" But not too many civilians.... I'm not out bagging civilians for the meat, silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 "This is for you, too, SC. Under the terms of surrender after Desert Storm, Saddam agreed to unrestricted UN weapons inspections; he repeatedly thwarted those inspections." Now what's this that I heard about the US weapons inspector doing a little extra-curricular intelligence gathering while on the hunt for weapons and production facilities? Taking coordinates that were then used on a subsequent bombing run? You heard about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted October 1, 2002 Author Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by sexual chocolate: "This is for you, too, SC. Under the terms of surrender after Desert Storm, Saddam agreed to unrestricted UN weapons inspections; he repeatedly thwarted those inspections." Now what's this that I heard about the US weapons inspector doing a little extra-curricular intelligence gathering while on the hunt for weapons and production facilities? Taking coordinates that were then used on a subsequent bombing run? You heard about that? S.C. GIVE US SOME PROOF BEHIND YOUR STATEMENT...AND NOT SOME SUPER LIBERAL JOURNALISM BIT EITHER!!! THANKS ERIK-THE MIDDLE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg_W Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I cannot confirm or deny the presence or actions of any alleged intelligence operations or information gathering. We gather intelligence all the time, so what? I have several black government Suburbans coming to your house right now, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Greg W: I cannot confirm or deny the presence or actions of any alleged intelligence operations or information gathering. We gather intelligence all the time, so what? I have several black government Suburbans coming to your house right now, for example. Hah! I live in a tree.... My point is that extra-curricular intelligence gathering was not sanctioned by the UN resolution, NOR the terms of the surrender. I have a hard time understanding how you would so glibly elide over this matter. And erik, i don't recall where i heard this. NY Times, perhaps? Would you dismiss that as a "liberal" news source, not to be trusted on any subject matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted October 1, 2002 Author Share Posted October 1, 2002 if that is where you heard.....i dunno...i would have to read the article...though i have my doubts.... nothing personal...that just sounds like some sort of emotional pinner used to lure the less then open minded.... either way!!! climbing! erik- still the middle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 One more thing.... "How long do we wait when experts say that he is between 4-12 months from a workable bomb?" Depends on the "experts", right? Most things I've read say 3 to 4 years, IF he got weapons-grade plutonium. His facilities were decimated, remember? Which is a rather major obstacle. Just giving a differing opinion, so as to alleviate some of the paranoia being fomented right now. two points: 1.North Korea is farther along in N bomb development than Iraq ever was, according to something I read on BBC. Have you heard about Kim Jong II and some of his exploits? Is he less of a threat than Hussein? Should the US attack North Korea next? 2. Iran is also farther along with their N bomb development than Iraq ever was (BBC). Should they be next in line for a US attack? Why the sudden hoopla about Iraq? It seems a bit too strategic for my tastes....Economy's down the tubes, president's ratings are jeapordized.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 N Korea has been attempting to develop weapons for some time as well as Iran. I would shithouse lawyer suspect that N korea is closer but who knows besides the miltary Either that's no cover for saddam who has used chem weapons on his own people in the past. His spotlight may be due to the press mostly if you ask me but to ascertain the others as a more lethal threat without inside knowledge is kinda like trying to predict the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I talked to a drunken German-Swiss man last week who insisted that all of Europe believes we are only in it for the Oil, and that in fact we are hoping to start some shit with Saudia Arabia too before it is over. What do you guys think about that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 IMHO all main stream media, media in general is slanted one way or the other getting ratings or apeasing you readership so that you can keep selling selling selling has nothing to do with finding and reporting the truth p.s. NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS... the middle is a good place to be [ 10-01-2002, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: sk ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote: Originally posted by mattp: I talked to a drunken German-Swiss man last week who insisted that all of Europe believes we are only in it for the Oil, and that in fact we are hoping to start some shit with Saudia Arabia too before it is over. What do you guys think about that? That is a great point and probably can assume that most of the population there could think the same. I say we just take the oil then. After that we can still hunt him down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayner Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 "Did someone say international inspectors??? Bring 'em on!!!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by sk: the middle is a good place to be Like Jim Hightower (a Texan I might add) says, "Ain't nothing in the middle of the road 'cept yellow lines and dead armadillos." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by mattp: I talked to a drunken German-Swiss man last week who insisted that all of Europe believes we are only in it for the Oil, and that in fact we are hoping to start some shit with Saudia Arabia too before it is over. What do you guys think about that? Plunder, pillage & bootie. Aye the life of a pirate! [ 10-01-2002, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: trask ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: Either that's no cover for saddam who has used chem weapons on his own people in the past. Saddam used chem weapons on Iran, which we approved of since they were our enemies (we were supporting Saddam at that time, Carter administration) and on the Kurds, who would beg to differ with the definition "his own people." We don't do a hell of a lot for the Kurds because our very necessary allies, the Turks, have a little Kurd problem of their own, and really don't want an independent Kurdish state springing up on their border and gobbling up some of their own territory. And the fact is, the Kurds may not really be our friends, just because Saddam is their enemy. I could be wrong, but seems like I've heard of their goal to be a reasonably fundamentalist Muslim religious state, who would most defintely not be buddy-buddy with a secular capitalist democracy like the US. And don't get me wrong, I agree that Saddam's use of chem weapons makes him completely despicable, but he's really only used them in situations where there are no repercussions for him. Saddam is secular, not a religious fanatic, and his goal is to stay alive on top of his hill as long as he can. Yes, he's a liar, as are most governments in matters of self-interest, but he is somewhat predictable, and I think he's very susceptible to containment. He knows that outright attack on the US, or supplying weapons to Al-Quaida is a total death sentence for his regime, and he's not looking for eternal pleasure in heaven, he wants a big slice of pie here and now. He's a black hat for sure, but I don't think he's the kind of wild card threat to the free world that he's made out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.