Re: Threats to the US
On 4/30/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Given that Saddam Hussein had kicked out UN inspsection teams, that US troops were only along the Southern Border of Iraq, and what we now know about how UN sanctions operated on Iraq, particularly the Oil-for-Food program, do you believe that these sanctions would have effectively prevented Saddam Hussein from selling chemical and biological weapons on the black market to the highest bidder? I can't let this pass - Saddam did not kick out the UN inspection teams - technically the US issued a threat to them - if you stay you may be bombed. US forces were patrolling the skies of both northern and southern Iraq - in fact had escalated interdict ions of targets in the last year of Clinton's administration. Sanctions pretty much effectively shutdown weapons procurement - their purpose. The Oil-For-Food program, primarily run by the US and the UK, was riddled with corruption as left publications complained of at the time. There were no chemical and bio weapons, the secular Iraq was not interested in arming it's enemies - fanatical religious terrorists with close ties to what Saddam considered his main enemy Iran. So yes, Saddam selling bio/chems to terrorists is the last lying refuge of flatheads desperate to justify a war that has cost American taxpayers $3,000 each in additional debt, thousands of lives, and decreased our security. Or did you miss that major terrorist attacks tripled last year? Gary Also, do you believe that the above would have effectively prevented Saddam Hussein from purchasing a full-assembled nuclear weapon from the DPRK over the long run? Every country in the world can now purchase nuclear weapons from rogue elements in the USSR. GOP leaders in Congress defunded for over a year the major program preventing that. Some people in this administration leaked the name of one of the CIA's few deep cover operatives whose responsibility was preventing WMD proliferation to a partisan columnist in a cheap political shot at her husband. BTW, I call that treason and believe that Novak and the people who did that should be tried and then shot. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US
On 5/1/05, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every country in the world can now purchase nuclear weapons from rogue elements in the USSR. GOP leaders in Congress defunded for over a year the major program preventing that. Some people in this administration leaked the name of one of the CIA's few deep cover operatives whose responsibility was preventing WMD proliferation to a partisan columnist in a cheap political shot at her husband. BTW, I call that treason and believe that Novak and the people who did that should be tried and then shot. -- Gary Denton Now that you mention it, what ever happened to the Plame thing? Last thing I can remember hearing (a while ago) was a bit of fuss over how two other reporters were clamming up and might be imprisoned, but nothing about Novak. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US
They have linked it to Novak and one unidentified official, neither is talking. These are the people they supposedly want to prosecute. Those are the only two people present at the exchange of information. A dead end unless something else shakes lose. The only thing keeping the investigation open is shaking down other reporters and see if something falls out that will help. Gary On 5/1/05, Maru Dubshinki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/1/05, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every country in the world can now purchase nuclear weapons from rogue elements in the USSR. GOP leaders in Congress defunded for over a year the major program preventing that. Some people in this administration leaked the name of one of the CIA's few deep cover operatives whose responsibility was preventing WMD proliferation to a partisan columnist in a cheap political shot at her husband. BTW, I call that treason and believe that Novak and the people who did that should be tried and then shot. -- Gary Denton Now that you mention it, what ever happened to the Plame thing? Last thing I can remember hearing (a while ago) was a bit of fuss over how two other reporters were clamming up and might be imprisoned, but nothing about Novak. ~Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:26:05 -0400, JDG wrote At 10:07 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ... same old song and dance I didn't come up with the permission slip metaphor, but hear this: I. Understand. The. Difference. Great!Perhaps you could help me explain it to Nick, then? I don't think he fails to understand the difference. Furthermore, I won't take on your problems with him, nor, if you notice, have I taken on his with you. I prefer to let you two work it out like the intelligent, opinionated, well-meaning members of this community that you are. Do you believe that: substantial snippage Thank you for your answers. They weren't questions. They were talking points with question marks. So, is do you believe not a question? I recognized your message as a series of statements of your positions posed in a question-like format. It reminded me of nothing so much as a purity test. If I wanted to determine what you believe, on this issue, how would you recommend that I go about it? Well, I would not recommend it. I can't see what good it would do us or our listmates for this argument to continue. Allow me to recommend this: let's stick with the we are at an impasse idea that you floated a couple of postings back. We're obviously not going to change one anothers' minds by continuing to badger each other. Let's just shrug our virtual shoulders with a slow, knowing shake of our virtual heads and aloow the list to move on to other topics. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical QuestionsRE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 10:07 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ... same old song and dance I didn't come up with the permission slip metaphor, but hear this: I. Understand. The. Difference. Great!Perhaps you could help me explain it to Nick, then? Do you believe that: substantial snippage Thank you for your answers. They weren't questions. They were talking points with question marks. So, is do you believe not a question?If I wanted to determine what you believe, on this issue, how would you recommend that I go about it? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US
At 10:27 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: 1) -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter So, do you believe that the US should have withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Persian Gulf following Gulf War I, as US troops were no longer necessary to defend these countries from Saddam Hussein? If so, why do you believe that during the eight years of his Presidency, during which he was substantially downsizing the US military, Bill Clinton did not do so? Additionally, why do you think that Bill Clinton launched operation Desert Fox, among other military activities in Iraq, during his Presidency?Do you think that Bill Clinton would have answered yes to question #1 above? And if so, do you disagree with Bill Clinton on this point? 2) -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Much less inflamitory than invading and occupying a sovern Arab nation. That's legitimate, although the inspiration US troops in Iraq provided to pro-independence demonstrators in Lebanon seems like an important counterpoint to your view. 3) -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the benefits to the US of being able to apply increased pressure for reform in Saudi Arabia were outweighed by the increased resentment against the US for deposing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq? 4) -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above This is interesting.If I understand you correctly, you believe that the resentment against the US in the Arab World for deposing Saddam Hussein, occupying Iraq, and setting up an independent government there outweighs the sum of resentment for US troops being stationed in the Muslim Holy Land, plus the resentment felt against the US for the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam Husssein and Oli-for-Food, *and* the resentment felt against the US support for its tacit support for the totalitarian Saudi regime. Is that right? 5) -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? If the funding of terrorists constitutes justification for invasion then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the nation that funded the 9/11 attacks. Doug, that's not an answer, it is another question. I have discussed in other threads the requirements for justification for war: 1) There must be a threat 2) Other options must reasonably have been exhausted 3) The war must be likely to do more good than harm 4) There must be a reasonable chance of success Dave Land has argued that Gulf War II did not meat the first critera - that Iraq posted a threat. You don't seem to have answered whether this particular example of Iraq's actions constituted a threat. In any case, while Saudi funding of terrorists is also a threat to the US, the proposal for an invasion of Saudi Arabia does not, in my mind, meet the other criteria for justifying a war. 6) -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? The lifting of sanctions may have been a possibility before 9/11. Not after. I'm curious as to why you believe that. Do you think that those elements in the world that were pushing for a lifting of sanctions on Iraq so a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?If so, what was that connection? 7) -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States,
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On 4/26/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing out that the use of the words permission slip intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Thanks, Dan. Spot on. But Dave, finish connecting the dots! Dan said he use of the words 'permission slip' intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. You said, to paraphrase, the use of the words 'permission slip' brought to mind images that undermined seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Do you view a child bringing home a permission slip as a child engaging in serious consideration of the opinions of his or her parents? Or do you view a child brining home a permission slip as a child getting the *permission* of his or her parents? Stepping in. The frame is the United States is not an unruly child as my opponents suggest. We are Texas tough. This is Texas BS but how our guys in the oil bidness like to talk. Moreover, what the President actually said was, America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. We're talking about removing the dictator in *another country* who posed *no threat* to the security of the United States Do you believe that: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Saddam's military was decimated, using the original definition of the word, compared to Gulf War 1 and even lacked the ability to defend itself from several neighbors to say nothing of the United States. -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Troops were not necessary to defer aggression by Iraq. They might be of use to prop up Bush's buddies when the place explodes in the coming civil war. -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? See both of my responses above -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Actually yes. The US and the UK had the most officials administering the sanctions and they ended up being both bribeable and foolish and caused needless harm to children. Another solution was developing but doesn't fit into this black/white/black discussion. What would have been the scenario if the other members of the Security Council had their continued aggressive inspections resolution approved? -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers after Israel demolished their homes has become conflated here with funding terrorists. Nice going. -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Does the US support for Syria as part of the deal in Gulf War 1 and continuing today despite administration rhetoric - see Canadian citizen flown by U.S. to Syria for torture interrogations, constitute a threat to our security? -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of
Re: Threats to the US
On 4/30/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:27 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: 1) -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter So, do you believe that the US should have withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Persian Gulf following Gulf War I, as US troops were no longer necessary to defend these countries from Saddam Hussein? Gary, giving my own answers again. Yes If so, why do you believe that during the eight years of his Presidency, during which he was substantially downsizing the US military, Bill Clinton did not do so? Additionally, why do you think that Bill Clinton launched operation Desert Fox, among other military activities in Iraq, during his Presidency? Do you think that Bill Clinton would have answered yes to question #1 above? And if so, do you disagree with Bill Clinton on this point? Geopolitics. Well the massive GOP media blitz on Clinton for trying to get tough on terrorists showed us who hates America. Clinton was the most Republican Dem president the GOP will ever get - which is why they hated him so much. Of course, I disagree with Clinton on sanctions and some actions. He was almost as amoral political as the GOP and was severely circumscribed on actions he could take. Giving in to the GOP spin that Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41 was a mistake for example. Most analysts find this implausible and a later Kuwaiti invention. 2) -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Much less inflamitory than invading and occupying a sovern Arab nation. That's legitimate, although the inspiration US troops in Iraq provided to pro-independence demonstrators in Lebanon seems like an important counterpoint to your view. There was selected media coverage of the demonstrations in the US . Some of the larger ones were quite interesting. 3) -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that the benefits to the US of being able to apply increased pressure for reform in Saudi Arabia were outweighed by the increased resentment against the US for deposing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq? I believe there is no increased pressure for reform on Saudi Arabia. 4) -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above This is interesting. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the resentment against the US in the Arab World for deposing Saddam Hussein, occupying Iraq, and setting up an independent government there outweighs the sum of resentment for US troops being stationed in the Muslim Holy Land, plus the resentment felt against the US for the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam Husssein and Oli-for-Food, *and* the resentment felt against the US support for its tacit support for the totalitarian Saudi regime. Is that right? Since my answers were the same as Doug's I see you do not understand the answers. Yes, the Arab world hates us much more now. It is pretty easy to see that in surveys. Previous US actions could be argued about but this was such an outlaw act that reinforces all the European colonialist past pretty much no one in the Arab world supports it. 5) -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? If the funding of terrorists constitutes justification for invasion then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the nation that funded the 9/11 attacks. Doug, that's not an answer, it is another question. I have discussed in other threads the requirements for justification for war: 1) There must be a threat 2) Other options must reasonably have been exhausted 3) The war must be likely to do more good than harm 4) There must be a reasonable chance of success Dave Land has argued that Gulf War II did not meat the first critera - that Iraq posted a threat. You don't seem to have answered whether this
Re: Threats to the US
JDG wrote: After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter So, do you believe that the US should have withdrawn its forces from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Persian Gulf following Gulf War I, as US troops were no longer necessary to defend these countries from Saddam Hussein? A big part of why he was not a threat was our presence there, but I do think that it may have been possible to remove to Kuwait alone. That's legitimate, although the inspiration US troops in Iraq provided to pro-independence demonstrators in Lebanon seems like an important counterpoint to your view. Time will tell. I'm certainly happy that Lebanon seems to be sheading its Syrian occupiers. This is interesting. If I understand you correctly, you believe that the resentment against the US in the Arab World for deposing Saddam Hussein, occupying Iraq, and setting up an independent government there outweighs the sum of resentment for US troops being stationed in the Muslim Holy Land, plus the resentment felt against the US for the plight of the Iraqi people under Saddam Husssein and Oli-for-Food, *and* the resentment felt against the US support for its tacit support for the totalitarian Saudi regime. Is that right? Yes. The Iraq war has been fantasticly successful for Al Qaeda and the enemies of the U.S. I have discussed in other threads the requirements for justification for war: 1) There must be a threat Was/is the S.A. funded terrorist organization al Qaeda a threat? 2) Other options must reasonably have been exhausted The Saudi's were immediately and automatically exonerated, therefore there was no need/chance to explore any other options. 3) The war must be likely to do more good than harm Why wouldn't your reverse domino theory work if we took over S.A. and installed a democracy there? 4) There must be a reasonable chance of success S.A. has a much more homogonous population than Iraq, thus the installation of a democracy would stand a greater chance of success. I'm also guessing that they have a smaller standing army than did Iraq, and they also have a much smaller population on which to draw for an insurgency. Etc. etc. etc. Dave Land has argued that Gulf War II did not meat the first critera - that Iraq posted a threat. You don't seem to have answered whether this particular example of Iraq's actions constituted a threat. In any case, while Saudi funding of terrorists is also a threat to the US, the proposal for an invasion of Saudi Arabia does not, in my mind, meet the other criteria for justifying a war. My suggestion was meant to imply that it makes more sense to attack S.A. than it does to attack Iraq, a country that had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks whatsoever and that, due to international sanctions, the U.S. military presence enforcing no fly zones over most of the country, and invasive WMD inspections, posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else. I'm curious as to why you believe that. Do you think that those elements in the world that were pushing for a lifting of sanctions on Iraq so a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?If so, what was that connection? The connection was that Bush said there was a connection. Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account either. No evidence whatsoever. This is ex post facto reasoning. The question, however, is knowing affirmatively that Iraq at one time had large stockpiles of anthrax, and knowing that at that point in time that Iraq was not providing an affirmative account of those stockpiles, did this consitute a threat? A question that the inspection teams were busy answering prior to the invasion. This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States? Inspection teams + U.S. presence + sanctions = No This is again ex post facto. We know affiirmatlvely that Iraq had other biological agents, and at the time of the decision to go to war, Iraq had provided no affirmative accouting of their disposal. Did this constitute a threat to the security of the United States? No. The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - elements of the Saudi government could do the same. Again, this ducks the question as to whether or not Iraq constituted a threat. No, they did not pose a threat. So, to summarize, Dave Land argued that Iraq was not a threat to the United States.I asked 11 questions regarding whether Iraq did indeed actually pose a threat. Your answers, so far appear to be: 1) No - Iraq was not going to attack its neighbors Iraq didnt have the wherewithal to attack anyone. 2,3,4,5a) Yes - Iraq was a threat to the image of America among Arabs, but going to war would exacerbate this threat _Has_
Re: Threats to the US
At 08:47 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: My suggestion was meant to imply that it makes more sense to attack S.A. than it does to attack Iraq, O.k., its not clear from this message.Do you believe that the US should have pursued a war against Saudi Arabia after 9/11? a country that had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks whatsoever and that, due to international sanctions, the U.S. military presence enforcing no fly zones over most of the country, and invasive WMD inspections, posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else. This is not exactly true. On 9/11/01 there were no WMD inspections occuring in Iraq, and indeed, none had occurred for years. I'm curious as to why you believe that. Do you think that those elements in the world that were pushing for a lifting of sanctions on Iraq so a connection between 9/11 and Iraq?If so, what was that connection? The connection was that Bush said there was a connection. O.k., so you seem to be saying that following 9/11, the rest of the world would have believed George Bush that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and thus would have ceased pushing for an end of sanctions on Iraq? 7) No Answer - based on information available at the time 8) No Answer - based on information available at the time 9) No Answer - based on information available at the time 10) No Answer - on whether the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon from the DPRK constitute a threat Inspection teams + U.S. pressence + sanctions = No threat. Given that Saddam Hussein had kicked out UN inspsection teams, that US troops were only along the Southern Border of Iraq, and what we now know about how UN sanctions operated on Iraq, particularly the Oil-for-Food program, do you believe that these sanctions would have effectively prevented Saddam Hussein from selling chemical and biological weapons on the black market to the highest bidder? Also, do you believe that the above would have effectively prevented Saddam Hussein from purchasing a full-assembled nuclear weapon from the DPRK over the long run? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US
JDG wrote: At 08:47 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, Doug wrote: My suggestion was meant to imply that it makes more sense to attack S.A. than it does to attack Iraq, O.k., its not clear from this message.Do you believe that the US should have pursued a war against Saudi Arabia after 9/11? I think that S.A.s connection to the attacks should have been investigated and exposed. I doubt that that would have lead to an invasion but it may have provided impetus for change in that government. Letting them off scot free was criminal. a country that had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks whatsoever and that, due to international sanctions, the U.S. military presence enforcing no fly zones over most of the country, and invasive WMD inspections, posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else. This is not exactly true. On 9/11/01 there were no WMD inspections occuring in Iraq, and indeed, none had occurred for years. So? O.k., so you seem to be saying that following 9/11, the rest of the world would have believed George Bush that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and thus would have ceased pushing for an end of sanctions on Iraq? See Gary's post, he said it better than I could. Inspection teams + U.S. presence + sanctions = No threat. Given that Saddam Hussein had kicked out UN inspsection teams, that US troops were only along the Southern Border of Iraq, and what we now know about how UN sanctions operated on Iraq, particularly the Oil-for-Food program, do you believe that these sanctions would have effectively prevented Saddam Hussein from selling chemical and biological weapons on the black market to the highest bidder? What chemical weapons, John. He didn't have any and he didn't have any history of selling them to anyone. What would have provided the impetus for him to start doing so? Also, do you believe that the above would have effectively prevented Saddam Hussein from purchasing a full-assembled nuclear weapon from the DPRK over the long run? Yes, sanctions and the U.S. presence would have made it difficult to do so and continuing inspections would have been a further deterrent. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. Well, I think we have reached an impasse here. I see a gaping distinction between the above two propositions. You see them as being the difference between potato and potatoe. In his response to me, though, that wasn't his point. We agree there is a difference between 1 and 2. I think that David was accurate in pointing out that the use of the words permission slip intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign. I think that is the pointalthough the song could throw one off. :-) Thanks, Dan. Spot on. But Dave, finish connecting the dots! Dan said he use of the words 'permission slip' intentionally brought up images of what kids bring home from school for their parents to sign.You said, to paraphrase, the use of the words 'permission slip' brought to mind images that undermined seriously considering the opinions of other nations. Do you view a child bringing home a permission slip as a child engaging in serious consideration of the opinions of his or her parents? Or do you view a child brining home a permission slip as a child getting the *permission* of his or her parents? Moreover, what the President actually said was, America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. We're talking about removing the dictator in *another country* who posed *no threat* to the security of the United States Do you believe that: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Thank you for your answers. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
On Apr 26, 2005, at 7:20 PM, JDG wrote: But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ... same old song and dance I didn't come up with the permission slip metaphor, but hear this: I. Understand. The. Difference. Do you believe that: substantial snippage Thank you for your answers. They weren't questions. They were talking points with question marks. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Threats to the US Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: RemovingDictatorsRe: PeacefulchangeL3
JDG wrote: -the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States constituted a threat to the security of the United States? After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone else for that matter -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein inflaming ordinary Arabs constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Much less inflamitory than invading and occupying a sovern Arab nation. -the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia in order to deter agression by Saddam Hussein undermining the ability of the US government to press for reform in Saudi Arabia constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above -the continued presence of UN sanctions on Iraq, designed to prevent Saddam Hussein's further development of WMD's , simultaneously impoverishing millions of Iraqis, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against us, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? see above -the funding of Palestinian terrorists, prolonging the Palestinian-Arab conflict, and inflaming ordinary Arabs against the US constituted a threat to the security of the United States? -the funding of Hizbullah, who previously killed 240+ US servicemen in a terrorist attack constituted a threat to the security of the United States? If the funding of terrorists constitutes justification for invasion then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, the nation that funded the 9/11 attacks. -the distinct possibility that France, China, and Russia would succeed in the lifting of UN sanctions and the ending of UN WMD inspections in Iraq, allowing Saddam Hussein - who had very nearly succeed twice before in assembling nuclear weapons (Osirisk and just before Gulf War I) - to resume his nuclear weapons program, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after US intelligence services had utterly missed the development of nuclear programs in Iraq (twice), India, Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK? The lifting of sanctions may have been a possibility before 9/11. Not after. -the stockpiling of large quantities of anthrax, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, constituted a threat to the security of the United States, even after an untraced anthrax terrorist attack on the United States had already killed 5 innocent Americans and debilitated several others? Which, after two years of occupation we can provide absolutely no account either. No evidence whatsoever. -the stockpiling of other biological agents constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Exhaustive searches and a billion dollars and not a trace of WMDs. -the stockpiling of chemical weapons, for which Saddam Hussein could provide no account, and which Saddam Hussein could probably sell undetected on the international black market, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? Pre-war inspections and two years of occupation and no evidence of WMDs except some shells Sadam probably lost in the '80s. -the distinct possibility that Saddam Hussein, possessor of some of the world's largest oil revenues, and who had twice before attempted to acquire nuclear weapons, could purchase a fully-assembled nuclear weapon from the utterly impoverished regime of the DPRK, beginning approximately in 2001, constituted a threat to the security of the United States? The even more distinct possibility that the people that funded 9/11 - elements of the Saudi government could do the same. Thank you for your answers. You're certainly welcome. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
