Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/17/06 6:09 pm:
Ronnie,

>>>I know this is iobvious,y a novel idea to you Elliott, but the most dangerous nutcase comes from Crawford Texas. Single handedly he has drawn the world to the very brink of a polarisation that could result in global warfare.<<<

"Single Handedly" Gee, and the Islamofascist terrorists and the ones who support them, train them, pay for them and hide them had absolutely NOTHING to do with that, did it. The lack of effective response to terrorism by the Clinton and Carter Administrations had nothing to do with it. The refusal of Saddam Hussein to abide by the cease fire agreement that he signed had nothing to do with it. It was ALL Bush's fault.

Pull the other one Ronnie, because that horse don't run.

>>>Not all who follow a different path to you are terrorists, although I can see how calling them that provides both satisfaction and opportunity to the afeared.<<<

You are right, not everyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist. Some of them are terrorist supporters. But the fact is that Iran is a fascist nation, with a leader who has stated publicly his INTENT to blow Israel off the map if he gains nuclear weapons, and will attempt to do the same to Western Nations including the USA. THAT is terrorism. Unless you happen to have a different definition of terrorism than the rest of the English-speaking world. I don't have to demonize Iran. Ahmadenijad has already done that all by himself. As for satisfaction, the only satisfaction I will get is when Iran is no longer considered a nuclear threat to the USA and Israel.

>>>If Bush was piping Gregorian chants into Itaq and Iran then he would have less blood on his hands, but - and I did expect you to know this (Perhaps you are simply being cute?) - he used real bombs and did more harm to the ordinarhy MIraqi in the street - an odd form of liberation! - than he did to the Iraqi government, most of whom escaped and had to be mad einto a pack of playing cards to help round them up!<<<

Yeah, that playing card thing worked pretty well, didn't it. Funny how making sure that the average soldier knows what the enemy looks like can do for efforts to catch the enemy. It's called bringing the intelligence to the people who need it. And it was done in a way that would insure that the soldiers actually absorbed the information. Frankly, it was one of the best techniques for teaching information to troops that has come along in centuries. There was nothing slipshod or half-assed about it. It was your military psychologists and intelligence experts at work.

And yes, I was trying to be cute: I was playing off your "Johnny-One-Note" comment with the Gregorian Chant comment.

>>>If Iran has WMDs, perhaps you will say what and where they are.<<<

They don't yet. Emphasis on "yet". Do yopu want to wait until they DO have them to take action? They are anywhere from 3 months to 18 months away from being a nuclear power, depending on who's reports you listen to. I prefer to err on the side of caution and make the assumption that they will have them sooner rather than later.

Do you deny that Iran is attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons? Do you deny that Ahmadenijad said as recently as January that he intends to use such weapons against Israel and the USA if he can? Do you consider those idle threats? Should we wait until he really CAN do it--- or worse, actually DOES do it--- before we take action?

If you think we should wait, then the only thing I can say is thank G-d you are not in the military, because you would be a piss-poor soldier.

>>>The Iraqi WMDs are still a figment of someone's imagination, <<<

Uhhhh... no.

We have REAMS of evidence that Iraq used the months before the war (the delays caused by the French, Germans and Russians) to move those WMDs to Syria. We have eyewitness accounts to that effect from former Iraqi military and government officials. We have the former head of Mossad saying the same thing. We have former Russian government officials testifying that Russian Spetznaz troops moved the WMDs. We have arial photos of convoys from Iraq to Syria. And we have Iraqi citizens coming forward to tell US troops that some WMDs are hidden in underground shelters that were cemented up and flooded in order to hide them. There are the IAEA reports that Saddam had WMDs... Hans Blix saw them, as did many others, and Blix complained that Saddam was not letting him see proof of their dismantling. We have Saddam's voice on tape discussing the fact that he was hiding the WMDs from the UN inspectors and that his governments reports to them were all deliberatly misinforming in every detail. And of course there are all those dead Iranians and Kurds from Saddam's WMDs.

So in fact the WMDs are NOT figments of my or anyone else's imagination.

>>>and to attack another country that posed no threat to your won is an act of war that can only be descriobed as barbaric.<<<

The word "another" indicates that there was a first time. Iraq was a threat. Aside from his WMDs, Saddam supported terrorism, broke the cease-fire agreement from the 91 war by flying in the no-fly zone, and many more violations. So again, I'm waiting for the first time for us to attack someone who wasn't a threat to us. It hasn't happened. And it wouldn't happen in Iran either.

>>>As for Israel entering war against Iran, it would be national suicide for the state of Israel to engage in any kind of warfare with its neighbours.<<<

Why? Does Iran have nuclear weapons or something? Is Israel in danger from a nuclear Iran?

Funny, they said that it would be the end of Israel back in 1948, 1967, 1973, 1986, etc. They thought that about the possibility of Israel attacking Iraq's nuclear facilities (another WMD facility that was a figment of my imagination, right?). In fact, they've pretty much been saying that for 2000 years now. They're still here.

>>>Perhaps you will support Bush's sabre-rattling and jingoistic rhetoric - repeated agin this very week - against China and N Korea - that he will attack them if they don't fall into line behind his twisted conservative republicanism.<<<

Really? When did he say that? I know that he said that they should allow democratic reform or he will take action. But I don't seem to remember him saying anything about an attack. There are forms of action that are short of military attack... trade sanctions, economic actions, import/export tarrifs, political pressure, etc. Who said anything about an attack? I'm pretty sure I would have remembered if Bush had said something like that.

I also find it funny that anyone who is security-conscious and willing to defend himself and his charges is labeled "jingoistic" by liberals. Especially if their name is Bush. But if there is another attack on US soil under Bush's presidency, those same liberals will scream to high heaven about how Bush isn't doing enough to keep that sort of thing from happening. From my point of view, better a jingoistic imperialist than a target or a victim.

>>>As yoyu seem to be such a fan of Bush's bomb and blast foreign policy, why not encourage him to bomb the bejeebers out of Beiging just to prove to the world that the USA means business and will not be intimidated just because a godless commmunist government has bigger armies and navies?<<<

When Beijing becomes as uppity as the Islamofascists, I probably will advocate exactly that. What's your point?

>>>That would send a message to all the little oil-countries so despised by Bush and his cronies.<<<

Yeah, it might. But so would eliminating Iran as a nuclear threat.

>>>Why pick on a shrimp when you can spear a school of whales?<<<

The whales aren't bothering us. The shrimp, on the other hand, are biting at us. A big splash will get rid of them, though.

Besides, why do you consider China a "whale"?

>>>When I read what you write, Elliott, I despair of civilisation ever becoming civilised, alas and lack-a-day!<<<

Fine. But I'm much more concerned with civilization survivng the next Islamofacist megalomaniac to become a nuclear power and try to Islamify the entire world in a nuclear holocaust. You have to survive till tomorrow before you can worry about becoming civilized. To the Arab world, "civilized" means "weak and soft", which in turn translates as "open to attack". I don't consider being "civilized" to be a major asset in the modern world. Being civilized hasn't saved France or Russia or Denmark from getting hammered by terrorists and Islamic fundamentalists. Civilization is over-rated as a survival technique. Sometimes you just need to get down and dirty and savage to survive.

So dispair all you want. It's the guys like George Bush and those who follow him, and our excellent military that will save your butt when being "civilized" fails to keep you from being a target and a victim.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/17/06 6:12 pm:
Speaking of delusions...

" I know this is iobvious,y a novel idea to you Elliott, but the most dangerous nutcase comes from Crawford Texas. Single handedly he has drawn the world to the very brink of a polarisation that could result in global warfare."

Really, then explain Al Gore. Explain bin Laden, al Zarqawi, explain The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I'd say it's much more delusional to label Bush a dangerous nutcase for his resolve in standing against terrorism while real dangerous nutcases like the Iranian president, following in the footsteps of his beloved Imam offers pearls of peaceful wisdom such as "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map, and this was a very wise statement."

It's delusional to believe Bush is singlehandedly polarizing the world in the midst of an all out assault of hatred against from the American left.

"Not all who follow a different path to you are terrorists, although I can see how calling them that provides both satisfaction and opportunity to the afeared."

Of course not, but do you even know what a terrorist is?

"The Iraqi WMDs are still a figment of someone's imagination..."

Yes, to everyone but well, everyone. Please, if you've accounted for them let us all in on your secret.

"and to attack another country that posed no threat to your won is an act of war that can only be descriobed as barbaric."

Ok, all but the actual threats made and 12 years of failing to account for those imagined WMD's.

Find another target Ronnie. Let's see the same kind of disdain for the terrorist that you display for Bush.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/17/06 6:51 pm:
Ron ; Bush did not denounced the democratic process in the Palestinian elections . Yes we are not happy with the results and the people of Palestine will suffer due to their poor judgement ,but so long as the process is allowed to continue there and this last vote was not "one person;one vote;one time" then it is possible that the people of Palestine will realize that they made a piss-poor choice and will correct their error at the polls next time. By contrast ;the people who we have liberated in 2 countries ;Afghanistan and Iraq ,have both been to the polls to vote in their respective constitutions ,and to elect their representatives a couple of times in their nation's infancy and they have not done too badly .

What the Bishite Cult has failed - thus far - to recognise is that what busgh want ha snothing to do with freedom or democracy but with George Walker Bush getting his onw way, all hi sown way, and nothing but his own way, and the aspirations and self-determination of other people gan go to Hell in a hen basket for all he cares.

This statement makes absolutely no sense . Please explain to me what personal motivation you think that Bush is using to justify this and please stay clear of Michael Moore like conspiracy theories.

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/17/06 8:49 pm:


Steve,

You ouyght to know by now that I don't dance to the tune of your agenda, so all your red herrings, mirrors, and smoke still do not settle the central issue that Bush is trouble for the USA and trouble for the world.

I know you can't see that, but that is your problem not mine.

Now, Steve, I have told you before in words som plain that a wayfaring man - or a red necked republican - though a wayfaring man need not err therein that I have absolutely no truck with terrorists or terrorism whether it is commisioned by Bin Laden, or Bin Bush.

I should not have to tell you that again.

You seem to equate my criticism of Bush with support for terrorism. That is absolutely insane.

You cannot see it? Again, your propblem. Try to think outside the GOP box!

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/17/06 10:05 pm:
Ronnie, I have no agenda other than truth, reason and common sense.

The truth is, Saddam Hussein had proscribed weapons, defied the UN for 12 years on this issue, and they have not been accounted for. If you can just account for them then we can be on the same page, otherwise your assessment that the Iraqi WMDs are still a figment of someone's imagination is just red herrings, mirrors, and smoke.

Reason and common sense say if he had proscribed weapons and they haven't been accounted for then we should be concerned about finding and accounting for them.

Once and for all, I do not equate your criticism of Bush with support for terrorism. However, when your cry against the leader of this great country is greater than your cry - if there is one - against terrorism, then one has to wonder where your priorities and sympathies lie. You asked labman "How hard did Iraq hit you?" I ask you, how hard did Bush hit you? How is your life in peril because of Bush? What freedoms have you lost? Has your speech been silenced? Has your family been harmed? Has he threatened to wipe you off the map? And how hard did Saddam hit his own people?

Think outside your own box Ronnie. No one can doubt that I stand firmly against tyranny and the evils of terrorism, I've made that very clear. Where do you stand besides against Bush?

Steve

Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 03/18/06 1:02 am:
Steve,

Put yourself in Saddam's place. Under attack and sitting on puiles of WNMDs, wouldn't you feel jutsified in using them to deal with the unprovoked attack?

If he had them, as you insist (without a shred of evidence), then why didn't he use them?

R

Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 03/18/06 1:50 am:
Erewhon,

Thank you for your fine comment to my answer. I have changed my mind. The atmosphere of fear perpetuated by Bush and Bushies often clouds my judgement.

Jack

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/18/06 11:48 am:
Ron ,
Inconveniently for critics of the war, Saddam made tapes in his version of the Oval Office. These tapes landed in the hands of American intelligence and were recently aired publicly.The first 12 hours of the tapes ( there are hundreds more waiting to be translated ) are damning. They show conclusively that Bush didn't lie when he cited Saddam's WMD plans as one of the big reasons for taking the dictator out.
Nobody disputes the tapes' authenticity. On them, Saddam talks openly of programs involving biological, chemical and, yes, nuclear weapons.

War foes assert that Saddam halted his WMD programs in the wake of his defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991 and Saddam's abandonment of WMD programs was confirmed by subsequent U.N. inspections.Again, not true. In a tape of April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.

"We did not reveal all that we have," ... "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

There's more.Saddam can be heard in his office in a 2000 tape talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear weapon. At one point, he discusses Iraq's plasma uranium program ;something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD.This indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb. The individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission ( UNSCOM).

Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack.

Some say he only pretended to have them .But where is the logic in that ? Pretending to possess WMD meant continued economic sanctions that deprived him of billions of dollars a year, debilitated his economic base and hollowed out his conventional arsenal. Worse , the fakery spurred his removal from power, the execution of his sons, and his capture.

Your question about Saddam not using the WMD has a simple answer . The Ruskies and the French convinced him correctly that they would be able to block any UN military action against Iraq . He did not count on the US forming a coalition outside of UN mandate .

He was also convinced from the actions of papa Bush and Clinton previously that the US would only take limited military actions. He was convinced he could ride out any attack and still retain his power. Had he used the WMD then his deceptions would be out and there would be no chance for his survival . The Ruskies who had a large investure in Iraqs WMD program "persuaded " him to hide his WMD assets and they assisted him in the months prior to the invasion to do just that .They were moved by Spetsnaz units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence .

This information has been corraborated now by a number of credible sources including his former Air Force Commander . Very few of the opposition still use the "BUSH LIED "mantra. Why do you persisit ?

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 03/18/06 3:55 pm:
Ronnie,

Put yourself in Saddam's place.

Sorry, as hard as I try I can't seem to put myself in the place of a man that executed his rivals, a number of religious leaders, gassed and/or otherwise killed some 180,000 Kurds, summarily executed untold numbers of others publicly (and telling the families of the condemned that they were to blame), destroyed an entire ecosystem displacing the ancient cultrue of the Marsh Arabs, etc.

No, as hard as I try I can't place myself in the seat of what former UN Special Rapporteur on Iraq Max van der Stoel, described as "the most brutal dictatorship ever seen by the world since the Second World War." I can't place myself in the position of a man responsible for a reported 270 mass graves, with a proven death toll of 300,000 after only 60 were examined. I'd suggest reading some of the survivor stories.

Under attack and sitting on puiles of WNMDs, wouldn't you feel jutsified in using them to deal with the unprovoked attack?

Ronnie you really need to study up on the truth of Saddam and learn what "unprovoked" means.

If he had them, as you insist (without a shred of evidence), then why didn't he use them?

As I insist? Like I said, as everyone insisted.

Basic facts

Chronology

It's fascinating reading Ronnie, you might even learn something. You are insisting we look at "Johnny-One-Note" Bush's record so take a chance, click on the links and take a look at Saddam's record.

Steve