48 HRS

[andyfox]

If, for the sake of argument, Saddam Hussein and his sons get out of town within the 48 hour limit, how will this enable us to get at Iraq's WMDs? I wish President Bush had explained this to us tonight.

[Jimbo]

We would stroll into Baghdad, ask the locals where all the bad WMD's are hidden, destroy them, install a provisional government, help hold democratic elections then stroll out again.

Hope this helps sort out your quandry Andy.

[Clarkmeister]

The only honest words from his mouth was when he said he'd be pissed if the Iraqis lit the oil wells on fire again.

[Jimbo]

Clarkmeister does this mean you do not think we will invade Iraq? I am amazed at all the otherwise intelligent people that think this beef with Iraq is all about oil! This attitude would be amusing if it were not so tied to our country's national security.

[Clarkmeister]

LOL - OK, two things. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Yeah, you're right, Iraq has been such a threat to our national security. Its amazing they haven't totally wiped us out yet.

[Jimbo]

Methinks you jest! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

Clarkmeister this is nonsense. Try reading the transcript of Bush's speech again.

[Clarkmeister]

I don't need to reread it. Its the same cock and bull story he's been repeating for months. Claims of WMD when we have zero proof. Lumping Al Quada and Hussein together when they are unconnected. Bogus sympathy for the Iraqi people whom he couldn't care less about.

It makes me want to vomit. I'm embarassed I voted for the man.

There is no such thing as a moral preemptive war. We have lost all moral authority.

On top of it, we are about to set a precedent that could change the face of the world, namely that it is legal and right for a country to invade another sovereign nation without any direct cause, merely upon suspicion of a "future threat". I can see all the other rogue nations (of which we certainly are now one) salivating at the thought of invading other countries under the guise of "protecting our future security".

I'm sure North Korea thinks that South Korea is cooking up things counter to their national interest. Fortunately, they can invade preemptively now and stop the threat before it grows. When we ask for proof from NK that SK is a threat to them, they will simply respond "South Korea has failed repeatedly to prove they are not a threat."

This is a black day in US history. Today, I am embarassed to be an American.

[Jimbo]

I can only gather from this last post Clarkmeister that you never even heard a word of tonights' speech. So sad.......

[MMMMMM]

I'm embarrassed too, because we should have done this long ago.

Honestly, Clarkmeister, what do you think the chances are that Saddam doesn't have WMD? I'm asking you to put a rough figure on it.

[brad]

including model airplanes?

[BruceZ]

Claims of WMD when we have zero proof.

When Saddam threw the inspectors out in '96, he was known to have 8500 liters of anthrax. This is unaccounted for. Do you think he destroyed this after the inspector's left just because he's a nice guy? And he destroyed it secretly, and destroyed all the evidence that he destroyed it so he could not get any credit for destroying it, and hence bring world suspicion on himself? And on the brink of war with the world demanding evidence of its destruction, he cannot or will not produce this evidence so that he can be ousted from power?

Furthermore, we have taped phone calls from Iraqi military leaders discussing how they are going to hide things before the weapons inspectors get there. Based only on the facts that have been made public, it is a near certainty that he has WMD, but it is also a near certainty that for each one of these facts there are a large number of other facts supporting this conclusion that have not been made public because we cannot let Saddam and other terrorists know what we know and how we get our information for obvious reasons.

I'm embarassed I voted for the man.

But you did vote for him, and until he proves himself to be a liar, we have to let him do the job we elected him to do, and give him the benefit of the doubt. You and I are not in a position to intelligently judge the veracity of what has been made public. The government is privy to many things that we are not. We really have no valid option but to take what they tell us at face value until given indisputable reasons why we should not.

There is no such thing as a moral preemptive war.

If you see a guy making a fist, do you wait for him to strike you, or do you try to get the first punch in?

On top of it, we are about to set a precedent that could change the face of the world, namely that it is legal and right for a country to invade another sovereign nation without any direct cause, merely upon suspicion of a "future threat".

Precedent? That's how it has been since the beginning of civilization. The only precedent in the recent history of mankind is the fact that for a short time after WWII, the US was the only country that possessed nuclear weapons and the power to take over the world, and we did not take advantage of that power for moral reasons. I don't know if this is common knowledge, but there was a group of physicists who worked on the Manhattan project that seriously discussed taking advantage of that opportunity. We have fought 2 major wars and numerous conflicts since then, and still we have managed to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle. Now the security of our nation is threatened by terrorists from 3rd world states, and still we do not use these most powerful of weapons, even though once again we appear to have no enemies that could stop us from doing so. When in the history of mankind has a nation proven so indisputably that they possess moral superiority?

I can see all the other rogue nations (of which we certainly are now one) salivating at the thought of invading other countries under the guise of "protecting our future security".

They've always been salivating, and they are held at bay mainly due to fear of retribution by us.

I'm sure North Korea thinks that South Korea is cooking up things counter to their national interest. Fortunately, they can invade preemptively now and stop the threat before it grows.

No they can't, because we have had at least 35,000 troops on the border preventing that for the past 50 years.

[brad]

'But you did vote for him, and until he proves himself to be a liar,'

i think the computer generated made in china warehouse thing qualifies

[Stu Pidasso]

This is a black day in US history. Today, I am embarassed to be an American.

With regard to Iraq and Saddam Hussien. Saddam is a thug in a region of the world ruled by thugs. The black days in US history that you should be embarassed about, are the days when Saddam was once our thug.

Saddam and his regime are responsible for millions of deaths, and we helped put him there, and keep him there. If American blood has to be spilled to correct that injustice, so be it. Better we spill some of our own blood, and lose some stature in the world, than allow the Baath party to kill another million.

Claims of WMD when we have zero proof. Lumping Al Quada and Hussein together when they are unconnected. Bogus sympathy for the Iraqi people whom he couldn't care less about.

If you cannot see how this is an important island hop in our war on terror, than it is clear you do not truely understand geopolitical situation in that part of the world.

Stu

[Chris Alger]

This war is not because of weapons of mass destruction any more than it's because of Iraq being a repressive dictatorship. The case makes no sense on its face: the further away in history Iraq gets from its worst depradations and the weaker it becomes militarily, the more threatening and aggressive it is made to seem by the White House. When Iraq was, by any objective measure, more threatening, US officials didn't consider it a threat at all.

The concern among US officials is not that Iraq has WMD, but that it will actually get rid of them -- if in fact it still has them, a fact the US remains unable to prove -- so that WMD can no longer provide a pretext for war.

Connect the dots:

1. The US knew about Iraq's WMD program years before the Kuwait invasion, almost certainly before Israel's destruction of Iraq's Osirak (plutonium producing) nuclear reactor in 1981. Iraq actually used WMD on people for years beginning by at least 1983.

2. The US also knew that Iraq harbored Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, both terrorist leaders, during the early 1980's.

3. Fully cognizant of these facts, the US never proposed the necessity of Iraqi "regime change" or disarmament, but acted in a manner opposite to what one would expect if their position today is to be taken seriously: it provided high-level intelligence to Iraq to further its war aims against Iran and continued to allow US companies to provide it with WMD technology. (The list of US companies excised at US request from Iraq's initial WMD report following UNSCR 1441 reads like a who's who of the defense establishment).

4. One could argue that the US "excused" Iraq's WMD program in order to defeat a greater enemy, Iran. Yet US support for Iraq continued well after the Iran war ended, and ran right up until the Kuwait invasion.

5. Alternatively, one could argue that the former pro-Iraq tilt was an inexplicable mistake. If so, it would certainly be compensated by Iraq's drastically diminished military and political influence. Iraq's military might peaked before the Kuwait invasion, when Saddam had an army of nearly a million troops and 10 times the WMD capability that he has today. His capacity for repression and foreign aggression were a matter of public record and in fact were far worse then they have been during the last 12 years. Yet in the late 1980's no foreign policy leader proposed the need to even sanction Iraq or bring it to account before the UN, much less overthrow its government if it refused to disarm. In fact, efforts to contain Iraq in the UN and the US Senate were thwarted by US policy-makers.

6. Consider also the specifics of Iraq's diminished WMD program. Prior to 1998, Iraq destroyed vast quantities of WMD munitions and the facilities for producing them, leading to a reduction in 90-95% of its WMD capability, according to UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter. Yet instead of pursuing the destruction of the remaining weapons, the US had the UN pull out its inspectors in order to bomb Iraq in retalliation for curtailing inspector access, which in turn was caused by their infiltration by US spies (reported in the Boston Globe, the NY Times, the Washington Post). Instead of working to get the inspectors back in, the US allowed Iraq to do as it wished for 4 years, encouraging Iraq to rearm, a fact that is utterly inconsistent with the current purported alarm over Iraq's WMD.

7. US leaders that favor war have consistently exaggerated the evidence of Iraq's current WMD capability, in some cases relying on fabricated evidence. Cheney's comments on TV alleging Iraq's growing nuclear capability, when UN inspectors have verified the exact opposite, are a typical example.

8. Many if not most of the most prominent supporters of war against Iraq have candidly admitted that even if Iraq had no WMD, they would still invade in order to install a pro-US regime (Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, The Weekly Spectator, The Wall Street Journal, and, last week, Bush himself).

9. Many of the most prominent war proponents were on record as favoring invasion years before both 9/11 and UNSCR 1441.

10. The UNMOVIC weapons inspectors have verified that major portions of Iraq's WMD program remain inactive and that destroyed and abandoned facilities have not been rebuilt or reactivated. There is no question that Iraq's WMD capability is nowhere near the level of 1988. Yet despite the complete absence of concern over Iraqi WMD in 1988, yesterday the US announced (through Powell) that it was out of the question to give Iraq 30 more days to disarm.

11. Within hours after the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, Rumsfeld ordered his staff to try to link the attack to Iraq (CBS News, apparently relying on leaks from staff members with qualms about the obvious policy shift). Within days after 9/11, Wolfowitz was arguing for invading Iraq, despite the lack of any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were both on record as favoring overthrowing the Iraqi government before 9/11, but until then had insufficient political support for their goal.

12. No strong evidence links the government of Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. Nor does Iraq have any record of encouraging terror attacks against the US or of funnelling WMD to terrorists, despite ample opportunity to do both for many years. Indeed, Iraq's support for terrorism was generally limited to the Palestinian issue, and the Palestinian terrorists that once worked out of Iraq are either gone or dead, and in any event haven't been heard from in years. Yet the continuous refrain from the White House and other prominent war supporters, is that Iraq is imminently likely to foment terror against the US, claims that constantly are being broadcast through the media without contradiction or critical analysis.

13. Bush has no incentive to make an honest case for war because the US media are utterly tolerant of the use of apparent pretext. The media discussions after Bush's speech tonight make this obvious: any discussion of contrary evidence or even tones of skepticsim (I heard none) were completely drowned out by a chorus of pundits that reflexively took Bush at his word. As long as Bush makes a colorable case that he himself believes in things that make little sense and can't be fully explained, the industry standard is to take him at his word and ignore those who do not. Two other examples: (1) the absence of media comment on the seeming contradiction between Iraq being a threat that justifies war but being relatively defenseless in the event of war, (2) the absence of media comment on the issue of urgency. If the press were more than a propaganda machine, this topic would arise everytime Powell says "he's had 12 years to disarm," but it almost never does.

[nicky g]

"If you cannot see how this is an important island hop in our war on terror, than it is clear you do not truely understand geopolitical situation in that part of the world.

"

This thread is full of these kind of statemements. I can't see it either. SO could you please explain.
Furthermore could someone give at least one instance of Saddam cooperating with Al-Qaida - names, rough dates, backgound etc.

[Chris Alger]

"we have to let him do the job we elected him to do..."

How was Bush elected to overthrow the government of Iraq?

"and give him the benefit of the doubt. You and I are not in a position to intelligently judge the veracity of what has been made public."

Right, what with the libraries and bookstores and internet all being closed, and there being no vibrant debate on the issue, how can people possibly make informed judgments?

"The government is privy to many things that we are not. We really have no valid option but to take what they tell us at face value until given indisputable reasons why we should not."

I.e., we should refrain from exercising our freedoms and have an obligation to assume the government has secret evidence that "we are not privy to" and should therefore take the government's word at face value, especially when it proposes to use the most violent and extreme powers it possesses.

Spoken like a true Stalinist.

[adios]

Chris Algers response in connecting the dots:

1. The US knew about Iraq's WMD program years before the Kuwait invasion, almost certainly before Israel's destruction of Iraq's Osirak (plutonium producing) nuclear reactor in 1981. Iraq actually used WMD on people for years beginning by at least 1983.

An example of placing the "sovereignty" of a nation as more important than who is in control. World history is replete with this thinking and how it has led to disaster.

2. The US also knew that Iraq harbored Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, both terrorist leaders, during the early 1980's.

An example of placing the "sovereignty" of a nation as more important than who is in control.

3. Fully cognizant of these facts, the US never proposed the necessity of Iraqi "regime change" or disarmament, but acted in a manner opposite to what one would expect if their position today is to be taken seriously: it provided high-level intelligence to Iraq to further its war aims against Iran and continued to allow US companies to provide it with WMD technology. (The list of US companies excised at US request from Iraq's initial WMD report following UNSCR 1441 reads like a who's who of the defense establishment).

An example of placing the "sovereignty" of a nation as more important than who is in control.

4. One could argue that the US "excused" Iraq's WMD program in order to defeat a greater enemy, Iran. Yet US support for Iraq continued well after the Iran war ended, and ran right up until the Kuwait invasion.

An example of placing the "sovereignty" of a nation as more important than who is in control.

5. Alternatively, one could argue that the former pro-Iraq tilt was an inexplicable mistake. If so, it would certainly be compensated by Iraq's drastically diminished military and political influence. Iraq's military might peaked before the Kuwait invasion, when Saddam had an army of nearly a million troops and 10 times the WMD capability that he has today. His capacity for repression and foreign aggression were a matter of public record and in fact were far worse then they have been during the last 12 years. Yet in the late 1980's no foreign policy leader proposed the need to even sanction Iraq or bring it to account before the UN, much less overthrow its government if it refused to disarm. In fact, efforts to contain Iraq in the UN and the US Senate were thwarted by US policy-makers.

An example of placing the "sovereignty" of a nation as more important than who is in control.

6. Consider also the specifics of Iraq's diminished WMD program. Prior to 1998, Iraq destroyed vast quantities of WMD munitions and the facilities for producing them, leading to a reduction in 90-95% of its WMD capability, according to UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter. Yet instead of pursuing the destruction of the remaining weapons, the US had the UN pull out its inspectors in order to bomb Iraq in retalliation for curtailing inspector access, which in turn was caused by their infiltration by US spies (reported in the Boston Globe, the NY Times, the Washington Post). Instead of working to get the inspectors back in, the US allowed Iraq to do as it wished for 4 years, encouraging Iraq to rearm, a fact that is utterly inconsistent with the current purported alarm over Iraq's WMD.

Perhaps one of the reasons many voted for Bush.

7. US leaders that favor war have consistently exaggerated the evidence of Iraq's current WMD capability, in some cases relying on fabricated evidence. Cheney's comments on TV alleging Iraq's growing nuclear capability, when UN inspectors have verified the exact opposite, are a typical example.

Chris knows for certain even though it files in the face of what many around the world say.

8. Many if not most of the most prominent supporters of war against Iraq have candidly admitted that even if Iraq had no WMD, they would still invade in order to install a pro-US regime (Perle, Cheney, Wolfowitz, The Weekly Spectator, The Wall Street Journal, and, last week, Bush himself).

9. Many of the most prominent war proponents were on record as favoring invasion years before both 9/11 and UNSCR 1441.

8 and 9 are Chris's way to minimize the importance of 9/11 and to a lesser degree 1441.

10. The UNMOVIC weapons inspectors have verified that major portions of Iraq's WMD program remain inactive and that destroyed and abandoned facilities have not been rebuilt or reactivated. There is no question that Iraq's WMD capability is nowhere near the level of 1988. Yet despite the complete absence of concern over Iraqi WMD in 1988, yesterday the US announced (through Powell) that it was out of the question to give Iraq 30 more days to disarm.

Even Chris admits the existance of WMD's in Iraq

11. Within hours after the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, Rumsfeld ordered his staff to try to link the attack to Iraq (CBS News, apparently relying on leaks from staff members with qualms about the obvious policy shift). Within days after 9/11, Wolfowitz was arguing for invading Iraq, despite the lack of any evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were both on record as favoring overthrowing the Iraqi government before 9/11, but until then had insufficient political support for their goal.

We just strong armed the UN Security Council into passing 1441.

12. No strong evidence links the government of Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. Nor does Iraq have any record of encouraging terror attacks against the US or of funnelling WMD to terrorists, despite ample opportunity to do both for many years. Indeed, Iraq's support for terrorism was generally limited to the Palestinian issue, and the Palestinian terrorists that once worked out of Iraq are either gone or dead, and in any event haven't been heard from in years. Yet the continuous refrain from the White House and other prominent war supporters, is that Iraq is imminently likely to foment terror against the US, claims that constantly are being broadcast through the media without contradiction or critical analysis.

So Iraq does have a legacy of harboring terrorists and promoting terrorism.

13. Bush has no incentive to make an honest case for war because the US media are utterly tolerant of the use of apparent pretext. The media discussions after Bush's speech tonight make this obvious: any discussion of contrary evidence or even tones of skepticsim (I heard none) were completely drowned out by a chorus of pundits that reflexively took Bush at his word. As long as Bush makes a colorable case that he himself believes in things that make little sense and can't be fully explained, the industry standard is to take him at his word and ignore those who do not. Two other examples: (1) the absence of media comment on the seeming contradiction between Iraq being a threat that justifies war but being relatively defenseless in the event of war, (2) the absence of media comment on the issue of urgency. If the press were more than a propaganda machine, this topic would arise everytime Powell says "he's had 12 years to disarm," but it almost never does.

The biased conservative media which in Chris's words is nothing more than a government "propaganda machine" is to blame for molding public opinion in the USA regarding Bush and Iraq. Sure it is.

Bush made it clear after 9/11 what he was going to do regarding terrorism. I'm one of those who don't believe that 9/11 was an isolated event.

[Dynasty]

Furthermore could someone give at least one instance of Saddam cooperating with Al-Qaida - names, rough dates, backgound etc.

I don't know why you are asking this so I'm not making any assumptions about your beliefs.

However, I certainly do not consider it even remotely necessary to link Saddam Hussein to Al Queda in order to fight the war and overthrow Hussein's regime. It's not remotely neccessary to link Hussein to the 9/11/01 attacks. Such links are irrelevent.

There is a large group of people who think that the "War on Terror" is only about capturing those responsible for the attacks on 9/11/01. It's not. The goal of the war is, and should be, the destroy all terrorist organizations and governments which support terrorism.

Al Queda throughout the world and the Taliban in Afghanistan were the first targets.

Iraq is the second target.

North Korea seems like a probable third target.

Some other nation (Iran?) will be a fourth target.

What we have seen in Afghanistan and are about to see in Iraq are only the first two large battles in war which hopefully will see many more (unless our enemies unexpectedly capitulate).

[nicky g]

"However, I certainly do not consider it even remotely necessary to link Saddam Hussein to Al Queda in order to fight the war and overthrow Hussein's regime. "

Fine. However, your President did exactly that last night, and many posters here continue to insist that there is a link. SO I would like some evidence - or is Bush just making it up as he goes along? (Answer=yes).


"The goal of the war is, and should be, the destroy all terrorist organizations and governments which support terrorism.
"
There are plenty of people at large in the US, and even in the administration, who have supported or carried out terrorism against various Latin American countries (including an associate of Jeb Bush who blew up a civilian air liner), against Iran, against various Palestinian organisations, in Lebanon etc etc. Furthermore the Britsh government has long been associated with Loyalist terrorists in Ireland; the French secret service blew up the Greenpeace boat Rainbow Warrior; Henry Kissinger authorised the car bombing of a CHilean general in exile in Argentinablah blah blah. If there is sucha commitment against terrorism, why is't anything being done about these people?
The only terrorist organisatons Saddam is known to have funded are long gone Palestinian splinter groups such as the Abu Nidal organisation. Meanwhile half of Boston could be done for financing the IRA. Double standards?

[BruceZ]

How was Bush elected to overthrow the government of Iraq?

He was elected to protect and defend us to the best of his ability.

Right, what with the libraries and bookstores and internet all being closed, and there being no vibrant debate on the issue, how can people possibly make informed judgments?

They can't. None of the sources you mention contain the necessary classified information.

I.e., we should refrain from exercising our freedoms.

Refraining from excercising our freedoms is a freedom.

and have an obligation to assume the government has secret evidence that "we are not privy to"

That's as safe an assumption as you'll find.

and should therefore take the government's word at face value, especially when it proposes to use the most violent and extreme powers it possesses.

Especially then.

Spoken like a true Stalinist.

Spoken like a true American who has the utmost faith in our system until it proves to be broken. To do otherwise would be much more dangerous. If I can't trust Bush, who am I going to trust, Chris Alger? /forums/images/icons/ooo.gif

think the computer generated made in china warehouse thing qualifies

Explain this one to me, I missed that. Was there some evidence proven to be manufactured by the US? I watch the news very closely, and all I've heard is that Iraq made that claim.

Actually, even if that were true, there is a difference between lying to the American people and bluffing other nations. The latter is standard operating procedure boys and girls. In international relations, we constantly seek to present and withhold just the right information so as to cause the optimal amount of uncertainties in the minds of foreign governments. Mathematicians working for the government actually use Bayes' theorem and game theory to do this all the time.

A stickier issue is when the president must convince the American people of something that he knows is in their best interest, but the full extent of the reasons cannot be revealed either because the information is sensitive, or because complete disclosure would divide rather than convince the American people because in the words of Jack Nicholson "you can't handle the truth". In these cases, the president has a conflict between his duty to defend the nation, and our desire for him to make a complete disclosure. Do you understand all the forces affecting the balance of world power so well that you would be able to correctly interpret why certain information compels us to attack a country even if you were privy to all of this information? I sure don't. That's why I pay other people like Bush, Rumsfeld, and thousands of other people working around the clock to do that for me.

I may not want him to keep information from me because I can handle the truth, even if I don't completely understand it. But I may want him to present the best possible case to you and other's like you if that is necessary for him to take the action he feels is necessary, and if he can't do that without withholding info from me or even slanting certain info, then so be it.

If you don't trust that the man has our best interests at heart, exactly what other reason do you think he has for doing all this? Because he hates Muslims and he picked Iraq out of a hat? Come on.

Because he wants to revenge his father's attempted assassination? Not buying that one, and you don't either since you don't even believe that happened.

For oil? When he was first elected people accused him of being in the pockets of the Texas oil companies. Now they accuse him of wanting access to Iraqi oil. Well you can't have it both ways.

To get re-elected? Well now it comes back to faith in people again. If you think he is capable of killing thousands and putting tens of thousands of lives in danger purely for political gain, I really don't know how to convince you otherwise. He won't get away with it if the whole thing turns out to be a big hoax, and Iraq is shown to not be the threat he has claimed. Maybe he could 30 years ago, but not in this day and age.

[Stu Pidasso]

This thread is full of these kind of statemements. I can't see it either. SO could you please explain.

Look at a map and see where Iraq is geographically located in relation to some of the known states that sponsors of terrorism(i.e. Iran, Syria, and our supposed friend Suadi Arabia)

Stu

[nicky g]

Ah. Conclusive proof. So - being next to other terrorist states proves you a terrorist state; and/or: It's perfectly OK to invade a sovereign nation in order to protect your own strategic and security interests in the region? Is that it? I fear I'm still unenlightened.

[Parmenides]

I am amazed that so many people blindly follow an imperialistic conqueror who has more in common with
Mr.Shicklgruber than he does with any other leader in the last 100 years. Of course, the same people say the FBI and the government lie to us when they say that if you play online poker that you support terrorists, drug dealers and murderers. The sad truth is that a fascist is in it for the money, and cares not about killing innocent people.

[adios]

"conqueror who has more in common with
Mr.Shicklgruber than he does with any other leader in the last 100 years."

You're finally beginning to see the light about Saddam.

[Stu Pidasso]

It's perfectly OK to invade a sovereign nation in order to protect your own strategic and security interests in the region? Is that it? I fear I'm still unenlightened.

The purpose of a soverign state is to serve the interest of the individuals who inhabit that state. The thugs in power in Iraq believe the purpose of individuals who inhabit that bit of land is to serve to the thier own corrupt interests. Saddam's title is president, but he forces the people to treat him like a god incarnate. Once you realize that Iraq is not a soverign state any arguments against the legitamacy of this war fade into oblivion.

Stu

[andyfox]

Well it's certainly more of an explanation than the president gave. Thank you.

[andyfox]

Let's say you're a bigwig in the Iraqi military and you're called into a meeting with Hussein and his sons and other assorted henchmen. You're asked who you think the biggest threat to Iraq is. What's your answer?

If it's me, I would say the United States. When asked why, I would say that it's the most powerful nation in the world with the biggest military and most potent economy; that it sees Iraq as alien to its values; and that it would not allow Iraq to ally itself with its enemies or to jeopardize its economic security. So we should develop weapons to protect ourselves.

Of course Iran has WMD. What country doesn't?

I still don't understand how Hussein and his sons moving to Switzerland would mean that Iraw would be disarmed.

[andyfox]

"You and I are not in a position to intelligently judge the veracity of what has been made public. The government is privy to many things that we are not. We really have no valid option but to take what they tell us at face value until given indisputable reasons why we should not."

Of course we can judge the veracity of what has been made public. Powell showed pictures and cited sources at the UN. Bush said if we forced Iraq into a democracy is would have the domino effect of encouraging democracy in other nearby countries. The State Department itself pointed out the illogic of this argument. Bin Laden's last statement showed how little regard he has for Hussein and that it's only our war with Iraw that will push him into an enemy-of-my-enemy alliance.

The argument that we should go along with the government because they are privy to many things we are not should not be made in a democracy. It is made quite often in Iraq.

[andyfox]

"If you don't trust that the man has our best interests at heart, exactly what other reason do you think he has for doing all this?"

A man can have our best interests at heart and be completely wrong.

[andyfox]

"Saddam is a thug in a region of the world ruled by thugs. The black days in US history that you should be embarassed about, are the days when Saddam was once our thug.

Saddam and his regime are responsible for millions of deaths, and we helped put him there, and keep him there. If American blood has to be spilled to correct that injustice, so be it. Better we spill some of our own blood, and lose some stature in the world, than allow the Baath party to kill another million."

I think this argument has a lot more merit than anything I've heard from the administration.

[nicky g]

Your definition of state sovereignty is pure fantasy, ans has nothing to do with your previous arguments about "stepping stones" in the war on terror.

[MMMMMM]

That's what Saddam's clique might think, indeed. We certainly are a threat to their Stalinist-style regime. Hitler and his Nazis also probably felt the rest of the world was hostile to their values. Andy, some values are simply wrong, and morally inferior, as well as less pragmatically successful. All values are not created equal. Some philosophies, too, are more sadistic, less respective of human rights, and less beneficial (even economically) to all. Some values actually deserve to be consigned to the trash bin of history--among such "bad" systems or values are totalitarianism, Nazism, Fascism, Maoism and Stalinism. At the risk of seeming bigoted, I'll also include Islamo-Fascism (Islamism) in the list because it is absolutely a form of fascism no matter how you look at it.

Saddam's departure would hopefully facilitate a less bloody, perhaps even bloodless, overthrow of the present Iraqi regime. Key scientists and some Iraqi military officials could then show us where the WMD are.

[MMMMMM]

"The argument that we should go along with the government because they are privy to many things we are not should not be made in a democracy. It is made quite often in Iraq."

It is quite often made in Iraq at gunpoint--or worse. All the more reason to get rid of those sadistic bastards running that country.

[MMMMMM]

There are several pro-war arguments which have merit. There are also some pro-war arguments that don't. The anti-war crowd (generally speaking) seems perhaps too fixated on refuting those arguments which don't have merit rather than realizing the importance of those arguments which do.

[IrishHand]

If you see a guy making a fist, do you wait for him to strike you, or do you try to get the first punch in?
Under US law, there's nothing wrong with making a fist. If you "try to get the first punch in" because you think another made a fist, you will be guilty of both assault and battery - crimes in every state that I'm aware of.

Excellent analogy though.

[IrishHand]

It's not up to the "anti-war" crowd to prove that war is a bad idea. The burden of proof in this case rests squarely on those in favor, and they haven't even come close. You ask the simple question...why is the most powerful nation and military in the world about to invade a largely defenseless country? The moment I hear a persuasive answer, I'll change my mind on fhe topic. The "arguments that have merit" that you're referring to don't exist - unless you want to get into the economic advantages of controlling that nation's oil or the short-term political benefits of having more military presence in the region. Claims that we're doing it in reponse to 9/11 or some humanitarian urge are completely laughable.

[Dynasty]

I still don't understand how Hussein and his sons moving to Switzerland would mean that Iraw would be disarmed.

The military occupation and disarming of Iraq is inevitable whether Saddam stays or leaves. If he leaves, it's believed the occupation can happen peacefully.

[BruceZ]

Under US law, there's nothing wrong with making a fist. If you "try to get the first punch in" because you think another made a fist, you will be guilty of both assault and battery - crimes in every state that I'm aware of.


I don't agree. Making a fist is a threat of force which is the definition of assault.

From my dictionary:
Assault 3. Law. An unlawful attempt or threat to injure another physically.

If a police officer sees you reaching for a gun or even thinks you are reaching for a gun, he can use lethal force against you. Any self-defense expert will tell you that you should get the first punch in when you are threatened with force. If you do otherwise, unless you are very skilled, you are a favorite to get beat up. If there is a reasonable chance that lethal force will be used, you have a right to use lethal force. If you do use lethal force, make sure it is exactly that, lethal. Dead men can't sue.

[BruceZ]

The argument that we should go along with the government because they are privy to many things we are not should not be made in a democracy.

This is not a true democracy in which the people rule. It is a constitutional republic in which the people elect officials to rule. A true democracy would be an inefficient and impractical form of government for a nation this size.

[IrishHand]

Making a fist is a threat of force which is the definition of assault.
Wrong, and wrong again, my friend.

Assault is the reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive physical contact. Your dictionary is fine for the clod on the street, but would be useless in court. The mere threat of physical contact won't get you anywhere - your apprehension must be immediate (which a person with a fist is not - he'd need to swing at you and either hit or miss or stop just short of your head) and reasonable (which a person with a fist is not, since people who are angry often clench their fists, and while this may be a precursor to a battery, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will - you might as well charge everyone who says "I'm going to kill you" with attempted murder).

If a police officer were to see me, think I was drawing a gun, then shoot me, he would get to enjoy some fine years in jail. There needs to be a hell of a lot more for an officer to use lethal force - namely, he too must have a reasonable suspicion that my act will endanger him or others. A random person drawing a gun (in Texas) hardly meets that criteria.

Your argument then dissolves into a commentary on street-fighting strategies, which I can't bring myself to respond to with a straight face, especially in light of what we're actually talking about.

[BruceZ]

Assault is the reasonable apprehension of an immediate offensive physical contact. Your dictionary is fine for the clod on the street, but would be useless in court. The mere threat of physical contact won't get you anywhere - your apprehension must be immediate (which a person with a fist is not - he'd need to swing at you and either hit or miss or stop just short of your head) and reasonable (which a person with a fist is not, since people who are angry often clench their fists, and while this may be a precursor to a battery, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will - you might as well charge everyone who says "I'm going to kill you" with attempted murder).

The definition I gave is a legal one. It can and does hold up in court. It all goes to intent which the courts are there to determine. Saying "I'm going to kill you" is a crime also. It's called a "terroristic threat".

If a police officer were to see me, think I was drawing a gun, then shoot me, he would get to enjoy some fine years in jail. There needs to be a hell of a lot more for an officer to use lethal force - namely, he too must have a reasonable suspicion that my act will endanger him or others.

Happens all the time. People pulling toy guns get shot because the officer can't decide in time if the gun is real. No they don't always go to jail. Someone pulling something that looks like a gun is certainly cause for reasonable suspicion of lethal force, what planet are you from?

Your argument then dissolves into a commentary on street-fighting strategies, which I can't bring myself to respond to with a straight face, especially in light of what we're actually talking about.

I can assure you that they are correct; my sources are the best in the world. They are also the only practical approach for the typical person, unless you plan to spend your life training for your next street fight. Everyone has a right to defend themselves to the best of their ability. No one ever should have to take a punch because they lacked the necessary skill to block one. Yes, if I have am a martial arts expert and I kill you before you throw a punch, I could be in a lot of trouble. If I am not, and I incapacitate you the only way I know how, we'll let the judge straighten that out, and I'm not going to spend a split second worrying about it.

[Stu Pidasso]

Your definition of state sovereignty is pure fantasy, ans has nothing to do with your previous arguments about "stepping stones" in the war on terror.

Some people in Iraq have fantasys about speaking out against Saddam and the Baath party. To act on that fantasy is risking being tied to a pole, having your tounge cut out and left to bleed to death while your family watches.

Some people in high government places have fantasies that one day Iraq would disarm peacefully or that the regime could one day become less oppressive. They convince others to buy into this fantasy by spouting off about the immorallity and horror of war. Look deeper and you will see their true motivations are purely political or financial.

Motivation and justification are two seperate things. We would have been prefectly justified in entering the war against Germany to stop them from cooking Jews. Its unfortunate we did not take that action until we were motivated by a pre-emptive attack from Japan and Germany's declaration of war against us.

Iraq is a stepping stone in our war on terror; that is our motivation. Its refusal to disarm and the tyranny of the regime is our justification.

Stu

[Parmenides]

Nope, Bush is the new Hitler. 9-11 was permitted, if not flat out caused by the CIA. Atta was funded by ISI intelligence. This has been proven. ISI intelligence is Pakistan. Pakistan is now our big ally (like Mussolini). The inordinant amount of puts on UAL stock the week before 9-11 came from a bank formerly run by Buzz Krongard: 3rd in charge US CIA. This has been proven. The Bush first strike doctrine for oil is nothing more than the invasion of Poland which the NAzi's insisted was done to protect German nationals in Danzig.

Your statement shows that you would have been screaming Seig Heil at the rallies.God will not forgive you. You pro Bush murdering sycophants will all burn in Hell for eternity.

[Parmenides]

Another jack booted Bush sycophant heard from. Jesus will not forgive you.

[MMMMMM]

"You pro Bush murdering sycophants will all burn in Hell for eternity."

What, then, will happen to all the pro-Saddam murdering sycophants?

[brad]

its hell for them too.

but the deepest worst hell will be for those decent people who stood by and did nothing. (like me)

[Jimbo]

"You pro Bush murdering sycophants will all burn in Hell for eternity." You got me trembling in my boots. Where do I go to for forgiveness? The Democratic party? If that is the case I better pack plenty of ice. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[brad]

jim youre obviously not a murdering sychophant.

however, you may qualify for 'useful idiot'. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

no offense im sure youre familiar with the political history of that term.

[Stu Pidasso]

Jesus will not forgive you.

I'll accept that Jesus charged you with determining who He shall forgive, and who He shall condemn the day I see you walking on water.

Pray that the Lord sends you some humility to temper your arrogance.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

I think this argument has a lot more merit than anything I've heard from the administration

You will not hear the argument with the most merit from this administration. What you will hear is the argument with the broadest possible world appeal. If your looking for support abroad, is it not better to stress that Saddamm is a threat to world peace than to ask for help destroying the monster you and your closet allies(some of whom are still in bed with him) created?

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

The only terrorist organisatons Saddam is known to have funded are long gone Palestinian splinter groups such as the Abu Nidal organisation.

You failed to mention Saddam's on going support for a brigade of suicide bombers that murder children and the elderly.

Stu

[brad]

like somebody else posted, its for anybody killed there (not jews obviously i guess), not just the h/s bombers.

curiously i wonder if that US naive bulldozer girl is eligible?

also i heard he hasnt paid off any yet not sure on that.

[MMMMMM]

Targeting innocent uninvolved civilians as opposed to targeting military personnel or military infrastructure is a different and worse sin. The suicide bomber synpathists don't seem to realize this.

Regarding Rachel: If you go stand in the way of a wrecking crane you just might get hit in the head with the wrecking ball. She deserves sympathy, but her case is not the same as that of a civilian or child doing nothing more than going to a bas mitzvah party who gets blown up by a suicide bomber at that party. Also, the soldiers who killed the girl by bulldozer (I don't know all the details) probably did a very bad thing (assuming they did it on purpose) but it is still not yet as bad as what the suicide bomber did at that birthday party.

Why so so many people seem incapable of discerning relative degrees of evil? Not just in these examples but in general.

[El Dukie]

Ah, the voice of reason! Clearly your level-headed analysis puts the rest of us all to shame. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif I especially love the bit about 9-11 being condoned by the CIA. I really hope you're just trolling, and not actually this misguided...

[Stu Pidasso]

You ask the simple question...why is the most powerful nation and military in the world about to invade a largely defenseless country? The moment I hear a persuasive answer, I'll change my mind on fhe topic.

In this largely defensely country you speak of, the goverment would not have to come up with a persuasive argument to get you to change your mind. They would just drop you into a giant shredder if you did not agree with them.

I ask myself everyday, why the most powerful nation and military in the world allows regimes like Iraq and North Korea to exist. History will judge us negatively for the genocide we ignore.

Stu

[andyfox]

Don'ty you think the president should have spelled this out for us, if this is what would happen should Hussein leave? An occupation? How do we know that the person (or junta) that would replace Saddam would allow an occupation?

[andyfox]

Insert "representative" between "a" and "democracy."

[Dynasty]

Don'ty you think the president should have spelled this out for us, if this is what would happen should Hussein leave?

I think he did. Perhaps it wasn't "spelled out" clearly enough but it was stated. We're going in no matter what.

How do we know that the person (or junta) that would replace Saddam would allow an occupation?

We won't be giving them a choice.

It's logical that the only Iraqi people who would be willing to assume the substantial risk of trying to replace Saddam would do so knowing that they will have to cooperate with the U.S.

[andyfox]

"We're going in no matter what."

Well, I sure didn't hear it. I thought it was an ultimatum: 48 hours to get out of town (pilgrim) or we come in.

So, as you see it, is the goal of our policy to take over the country and remake it to our liking? I think it is. And this is, or course, why Bush cannot be truthful with the American people. One would have hoped for a more insightful or logical cover story, though.

[Dynasty]

This is from the transcript of Bush's speech:

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power. It is not too late for the Iraq military to act with honor and protect your country, by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attack and destroyed.

This appears to be the closest Bush came to bluntly saying "We're going in no matter what". The various Bush officials commenting on Tuesday morning made it a clearer that we're going in even if Saddam leaves the country.

So, as you see it, is the goal of our policy to take over the country and remake it to our liking?

It's not the goal but it will be a result. The goal is to destroy a government which has supported terrorism in the past and can reasonably be expected to continue to do so in the future.

The entire "War on Terror" is about destroying these governments and terrorist organizations. It's not simply about capturing and prosecuting those directly involved with the 9/11/01 attacks.

[Chris Alger]

"The military occupation and disarming of Iraq is inevitable whether Saddam stays or leaves."

How do you know that it is "inevitable" that the US will not turn the same blind eye to WMD in a pro-US Iraq as it does to Israel and Pakistan?

[Chris Alger]

"The goal of the war is, and should be, the destroy all terrorist organizations and governments which support terrorism."

Are you serious?

1. When the US instructed the Nicaraguan contras to focus on "soft targets" such as farms, cooperatives, clinics, schools and civilian buses, and they did so, killing thousands of civilians, was this "terrorism" by your definition? If so, do you want to "destroy all governments which support[ed]" it?

2. When Israel shoots civilians for violating a curfew that Israel has no legal right to enforce, and crushes them in their houses as they are being demolished, is this terrorism, or something better? Is the following account by NY Times reporter Chris Hedge's (wrirting in Harper's last year) terrorism:

"I sit in the shade of a palm-roofed hut on the edge of the dunes, momentarily defeated by the heat, the grit, the jostling crowds, the stench of the open sewers and rotting garbage. A friend of Azmi's brings me, on a tray, a cold glass of tart, red carcade juice."

"Barefoot boys, clutching kites made out of scraps of paper and ragged soccer balls, squat a few feet away under scrub trees. Men in flowing white or gray galabias -- homespun robes -- smoke cigarettes in the shade of slim eaves. Two emaciated donkeys, their ribs protruding, are tethered to wooden carts with rubber wheels."

"It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker."

""Come on, dogs," the voice booms in Arabic. "Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!""

"I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: "Son of a bitch!" "Son of a whore!" "Your mother's cunt!""

"The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come."

"A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos."

"Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered -- death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo -- but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."

[Chris Alger]

I have no idea what you mean by "An example of placing the "sovereignty" of a nation as more important than who is in control. World history is replete with this thinking and how it has led to disaster." My point is simple: the current professed obsession with Iraqi WMD is not plausible given the history.

"7. US leaders that favor war have consistently exaggerated the evidence of Iraq's current WMD capability, in some cases relying on fabricated evidence. Cheney's comments on TV alleging Iraq's growing nuclear capability, when UN inspectors have verified the exact opposite, are a typical example.

Chris knows for certain even though it files in the face of what many around the world say."

It's (obviously) not based on my personal knowledge. The Chief UN nuclear inspector, Mohammed el Baradai, said on March 7 that "There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities" by Iraq, and pointed out that the documents the US used to argue that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Nigeria were forgeries. Colin Powell was right there and offered no contradiction. Maybe you could identify one of "the many" people in the world that can offer so much as a single fact to refute this description.

[Cyrus]

-- A threat is not legally equivalent to the actual execution of the act. (In some games, such as Chess, it is sometimes even stronger than the execution! And this includes, of course, world diplomacy. But I digress.)

-- The concept of pre-emptive strike has been a honorable one among nations. This is said tongue-in-cheek but it's a fact. (Witness Israel's pre-emptive war par excellence in 1967.) And current American foreign policy dogma most definitely includes the concept of pre-emptiveness. (History buffs may wanna look up the difference between two concepts much discussed among "Cold War strategists", first use versus first strike. Ah, those were the days.)

-- This means that the law of int'l diplomacy, for better or worse, has regressed to the law of the street. Where, as we should know, pre-emptive strike is the only way to win an argument!

-- It is useless to argue around legal niceties in the age of complete and unchallenged American hegemony. Another cornerstone of current American foreighn policy is the willingness and the readiness to severely punish, also as a warning to others, any nation that dares challenge the US supremacy. "Such thoughts must not even be allowed". Stepping all over small nations every decade or so, is a solid reminder of who's boss.

-- It is to the interest of the United States that "rogue states" contuinue to exist around the world. I am not suggesting, for God's sake, that the US is or has ever been intentionally propping up such regimes -- perish the thought! I am only stating the obvious fact that it is good for America's national interest in world affairs that North Korea and Libya exist at all. (Also for for General Dynamics shares.)

--Cyrus

PS: There is no such word as "terroristic".

[MMMMMM]

yes Chris...el-Baradei was talking about nukes--Blix on the other hand believes Iraq has biological and chemical weapons.

I'm sure you'll change your opinion shortly.

[Chris Alger]

The subject was nukes, specifically Cheney's comments on Iraq's nuclear capability.

My opinion on Iraqi WMD? I've never said that they probably don't exist in hidden stockpiles, and in fact I suspect this is the case. But I have no more proof than you do. My point is that US security is hardly more threatened by Iraqi WMD than it is by many of the other 28 or so countries that possess them, and that the US has exaggerated this threat. Most of the world agrees with me.

[MMMMMM]

The threat may indeed be overplayed at present, but it is certain to materialize in a nasty way at some future date if left unchecked. Saddam will develop nukes, given enough time. The only way to truly "check" Iraq's advance towards nuclear weaponry is to remove Saddam, as his history clearly shows an unrelenting effort to gain whatever he can in this direction.

[Chris Alger]

All untrue. If Saddam can develop nuclear weapons without detection, then how does the US know the identity of every nuclear power in the world? Why aren't we reading in the papers that X countries are known to have nukes, but nobody really has any idea because it's so easy to build them without being detected by surveillance? If leaving Saddam "unchecked" is so disasterous, then why were both the Clinton and Bush administrations complaisant about the absence of inspectors in Iraq -- withdrawn at US request, not "kicked out" by Saddam as the media tends to report -- for years?

"his history clearly shows an unrelenting effort to gain whatever he can in this direction."

"Effort" without any ability is never a problem. For the umpteenth time, if Iraq is such a threat to the world and the region, why isn't it a threat to its own airspace, or even to the northern region of Iraq controlled these last 10 years by the Kurds?

[nicky g]

Saddam made a general commitment to give the family of any suicide bomber $25000. Saddam is not actually funding the terrorist organisations - rather rewarding/supporting their families. That's a minor distinction, though - the main point is that no money has actually ever been paid out.

[nicky g]

"Targeting innocent uninvolved civilians as opposed to targeting military personnel or military infrastructure is a different and worse sin. The suicide bomber synpathists don't seem to realize this."

Of course it is. But the idea that that is what some of us (certainly not "suicide bomber sympathists) are criticising Israel for doing (ie targetting Palestinian military infrastructure) is absurd - the Israelis target civilians and children, as well as Hamas and Islamic Jihad operatives. The whole occupation deliberately makes lives as miserable as possible for civilians. The Israelis block access to people's land, tear down olive trees and dig up crops, shoot unarmed demonstrators, attack terrorist targets in a way guaranteed to cause large civilan casualties, prevent people from travelling from town to town, routinely block ambulances, deny all permits to build Palestinian homes, recently fired a tank shell into a crowd of innocent bystanders etc etc. I don't care when they go after Hamas etc; few people do. Yet the majority of their victims have been civilians - that is what we protest against.

[brad]

hes right. the evidence supports what he says more than any other theory.

of course if youre not interested in evidence then just beleive propaganda.

[brad]

well personally if (as it seems from the evidence) the bulldozer driver ran her down with malice and a cavilier-ness which is common among the israeli army (as opposed to a terrible accident) then i think that that is more evil than bombing say a nightclub which is sure to contain many military personnel.

obviously people will disagree, but i base my judgement on the following:

when there is a power imbalance between 2 groups, strong and weak,

i believe it is more evil for

the strong to show no mercy to the weak,

than for the weak to show no mercy for the strong.

by no mercy i mean immediately escalating to a fatal use of force when perhaps less force would suffice.

[BruceZ]

PS: There is no such word as "terroristic".

Well you're wrong. See for example (as well as many many other places on the web) a legal definition here:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/cji/490/490-20.pdf

or here:

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2002/bills/SB19enr.htm

The word is even in my dictionary. You should have considered that if it were not a word, I never would have used it.

[Parmenides]

the guilty conscious Germans that did nothing but cheer genocide before and during the war cried that "We didn't know". That's just crap. They were told and watched it unfold for almost a decade. They economically benefitted and cheered it on.

The situation is the same today. You are one that cheers. I am one that says that this wrong. Brad has the most true perspective, however. Truly a voice in the wildernes is all that a tax paying law abiding citizen can do.



Still playing illegal online poker? Still not paying taxes on it? The Republican junta will soon outlaw and seize all the money on deposit in off shore shell banks. If you don't like it, then the Republican junta will put you in jail. You won't be cheering when they come from you, Jimbo.

[Jimbo]

Still playing illegal online poker? Still not paying taxes on it? The Republican junta will soon outlaw and seize all the money on deposit in off shore shell banks. If you don't like it, then the Republican junta will put you in jail. You won't be cheering when they come from you, Jimbo.

You are certainly an odd duck Parmenides. It is not surprising that your namesake was a rather poor philosopher and even with Zeno defending his faulty conclusions by use of two clever paradoxes his assumptions were proved faulty in later years and I am sure yours will befall the same fate. As for taxes, I am a loyal tax paying American (unlike you) and pay all taxes due. I have no accounts in offshore banks so that seizure you mentioned seems like a good way to pay for the upcoming war in Iraq. As for them coming for me it is fair to conclude that you are more likely to be arrested for violations of the Patriot Act than I.

[MMMMMM]

I don't doubt that Israel could be more careful in their application of force. On the other hand, Hamas terrorists deliberately mix with the common populace. The use of human shields in Jenin was certain to cause civilian casualties. We will see much of this tactic in Iraq, sadly.

[nicky g]

"Hamas terrorists deliberately mix with the common populace. "

Sometimes. But they don't drive ambulances work in hospitals, live in olive groves or fields, and are fairly easy to distinguish from small children and the elderly. They rarely look like young American women either.

[Cyrus]

The -ist denotes exactly what -ic does, too. When we say that someone is a fascist, we mean that he is a supporter of fascism. Calling someone or something as being "fascistic", "democratistic" or "communistic" is (at least to these untrained, non-English ears) redundant.

I know that it has become part of the language but it still grates my ears. Like many other words that are in the dictionary.

[BruceZ]

The -ist denotes exactly what -ic does, too.

It most certainly does not. "Terrorist" is a noun. "Terroristic" is an adjective. You don't say someone is terrorist. You say he is A terrorist. Saying a terrorist is terroristic is uncommon but correct. A "terroristic threat" is a legal term with a specific meaning. You sometimes hear of a "terrorist threat" which is absolutely incorrect.

[Cyrus]

"Terrorist" is a noun. "Terroristic" is an adjective. You don't say someone is terrorist. You say he is A terrorist. Saying a terrorist is terroristic is uncommon but correct.

It simply sounds wrong as an a adjective. Saying that a terrorist is terroristic is redundant. A threat coming from a fascist is a fascist threat. An idea that's part of Communism is a communist idea.

I think it's the extreme alienation that must be conveyed that has brought about the terms "terroristic" or "communistic". I haven't seen them used in any serious text that I have read, be it about terrorism or about political economy.

A "terroristic threat" is a legal term with a specific meaning.

Wouldn't the same meaning be conveyed by "terrorist threat"?

[BruceZ]

The words "fascist" and "communist" may be correctly used as either nouns or adjectives, though using them as adjectives is actually the exception to the way suffixes are usually formed in English. Saying a "terrorist threat" is absolutely incorrect unless "terrorist" were made an adjective, in which case I could say "you are terrorist". This, to my knowledge and according to my dictionary, is not correct English. The only acceptable adjective form of "terrorist" is "terroristic". This is by no means a new word to the language. As a legal term, "terroristic threat" has meaning. "Terrorist threat" does not.

There is no such word as "democratistic" because there is no such word as "democratist". The noun form is "democrat". The adjective form is "democratic".

[Parmenides]

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. THe CIA did. Why don't you read about the facts, and the results of real investigations? The reason is simple: you are a brown shirt sold on the lies of Cheney and Bush. In 2 years this country has gone from the greatest bull market everr seen and relative peace, to depression, infinite war, tax cuts for the wealthy, bankrupt state governments, the repeal of the several of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and idiots posting about how a coke addicted, alcoholic, spoiled brat, deserter represents American values.


It has happened here.

[Cyrus]

The words "fascist" and "communist" may be correctly used as either nouns or adjectives, though using them as adjectives is actually the exception to the way suffixes are usually formed in English.

Are you really saying that the use of the adjective "communist" is the excpetion and the use of "communist" the norm? That's not how I read 'em.

Saying a "terrorist threat" is absolutely incorrect unless "terrorist" were made an adjective, in which case I could say "you are terrorist". This, to my knowledge and according to my dictionary, is not correct English.

What I keep hearing is "terrorist threat" but rarely "terroristic threat". Same with "fascist dictator", "communist country", etc. Are all those who are using the adjectives thus wrong?

There is no such word as "democratistic" because there is no such word as "democratist". The noun form is "democrat". The adjective form is "democratic".

Correct about that Greek. I should have used another example for that ugly -istic.

[BruceZ]

Are you really saying that the use of the adjective "communist" is the excpetion and the use of "communist" the norm? That's not how I read 'em.

No, they are perfectly correct and commonly used as both nouns and adjectives. I'm saying that these particular words are exceptional in that they can be used as adjectives without adding the suffix "ic". The words "fascistic" and "communistic", and "terroristic" are also correct, in the dictionary, and are not new words to the language.

What I keep hearing is "terrorist threat" but rarely "terroristic threat". Same with "fascist dictator", "communist country", etc. Are all those who are using the adjectives thus wrong?

That is what I am saying, yes, they are all absolutely wrong. The only correct adjective form of the word "terrorist" given by the dictionary is "terroristic". Someone with a fully unabridged and new dictionary check me on this. If "terrorist threat" were correct, then "you are terrorist" would also be correct, and I am quite confident that it is not.

Correct about that Greek. I should have used another example for that ugly -istic.

I'm quite confident that I am correct about each of these points.