The War in Iraq is already a success

[ComedyLimp]

Qaddafi renouncing of WMD is significant becuase, although he had no credible delivery capability, he did have had stockpiles of exactly the sort of chemical, biological and low/medium grade nuclear material we didn't want to fall into the hands of terrorists. The very same terrorists he has also stopped sponsoring and supporting in fact.

Where Gamblor is wrong is linking this to Iraq and Bush. Libya has changed its ways as a result of diplomatic and economic pressure in a process that has been going on for years -- indeed it really started with Libya giving up the Lockerbie suspects which has been going on for at leat 5 years.

In fact the process that has occured in Libiya is much closer to the European model for dealing with state sponsored terrorism. Whcih was also Clinton's approach (which did include bobmbing them of course) so by extension you can argue that if anything Libiya supports Kerry's policy approach rather than Bush's.

[ACPlayer]

To say that Iraq "History" began a year ago is just nuts. The culture and history of the people is what it is and will continue to influence the way Iraq is shaped for the lifetime through those of your son's sons and more.

This is the shallow thinking of some who think that they can wipe out the memories and heritage of a people by one event. This is idiotic. Unfortunately some of our present leaders have bought into this idiotic thinking.

[ACPlayer]

OK, perhaps you will agree that the three culprits I pointed out are the one that are directly the causes of the anti-US terrorism.

I dont believe that the Iranian Theocracy should be feared by the US, unless we continue the immoral one sided support of Israel and even then they are a tangential threat at best.

I dont believe that Saddam was a threat to us.

I dont believe the Taliban would have been an issue for us if the US was not consistently supporting the Tyranical groups I have pointed at. The Taliban was created by US because we continue to believe that History begins and ends in moments like the defeat of the Russians by the Afghans. Stupid!

[nicky g]

"Qaddafi renouncing of WMD is significant becuase, although he had no credible delivery capability, he did have had stockpiles of exactly the sort of chemical, biological and low/medium grade nuclear material we didn't want to fall into the hands of terrorists. The very same terrorists he has also stopped sponsoring and supporting in fact. "

I am not aware of Gaddafi having any biological stockpiles. As far as chemical weapons, the BBC reported he had stockpiles of mustard gas from a factory that closed ten years ago and little else. I doubt that even in the hands of terrorists that would have posed a serious threat to anyone; short of setting up artillery positions and firing dozens of shells at a major city I can't imagine they could have used them to kill much more people than a conventional bomb would. I also would not be surprised, although I don't know, if ten year old mustard gas would have degraded to the point of uselessness. Certainly that was what many scientists and inspectors said about Saddam's unaccounted for remaining chems, though I forget which ones they were.

As for nuclear materials, I don't know what he had in terms of radioactive materials. It doesn't appear he was close to being able to make a nuclear bomb. If I'm misinformed about his capabilities let me know.

Finally, the terrorist groups Gaddafi supported and was alleged to support did not to my knowledge include anyone who would have benfited from or wanted to launch major WMD attacks on major western targets. Even if al-Qa'ida now poses such a threat (let's hope it doesn't), there was never any suggestion Gaddafi supported them.

Certainly it is better to have as many people as possible committed to anti-proliferation and Gaddafi's decision to stop pursuing nuclear technology is a positive development. But to claim this as a victory for the Iraq war or a major step forward in protecting us from rogue WMDs or terrorists is really quite absurd. (I'm not suggesting you claimed either of those things; several others have).

[Gamblor]

I dont believe that the Iranian Theocracy should be feared by the US, unless we continue the immoral one sided support of Israel and even then they are a tangential threat at best.

The immoral one sided support of Israel? How hypocritical can you get?

Who would you have the US support? Despotic Arab regimes? The PA, who sits in the corner and laughs every time 20 more Israelis are murdered? Hamas? Until Joe Palestinian gets his act together and gets a reasonable political alternative in office, there's nobody to support. You're a fucking joke. Wait til you Americans turn tail and hide when a 9/11 is happening every day in New York, Dallas, LA. Dean will be in office and you'll be begging Allah for mercy.

OK, perhaps you will agree that the three culprits I pointed out are the one that are directly the causes of the anti-US terrorism.

Who cares? It's terrorism, and any way of rationalizing the murder of innocents for political gain is ludicrous. If Rodney King planted a bomb in the LAPD headquarters, it would still be an abominable act, you would tell the LAPD to show restraint and not arrest him.

[Gamblor]

I said nothing about wiping out history, and I'll thank you to stop imposing your opinions on me.

I said the NEW history. Everything before May 2003 may be viewed as the OLD history, a history everyone acknowledges but would just as soon forget if they could.

[nicky g]

"Who would you have the US support"

Everything's balck and white to people like you. It's prefectly possible to support a compromise between two positions without supporting any "side". I certianly support neither the Israeli government nor Arafat nor the Palestinian terrorist; they are all disgusting people. The US should be pushing for a fair resolution rather than supporting any of them outright.

"Despotic Arab regimes?"
You seem to miss the point that it supportts many of those. And you need look no further than the ISraeli state for support of disgusting regimes worldwide: Pinochet Chile and apartheid South Africa spring to mind. Quel surprise.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush was wrong about Iraqi WMD though [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. Good points, too bad the anti Bush faction can't see past the nose on their face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because much of the anti-Bush crowd knows that even if democracy comes to Iraq, the reason behind our invasion of Iraq had more to do with establishing a presence in the region and oil than making sure Iraq has a vibrant democracy.

[Gamblor]

The US should be pushing for a fair resolution rather than supporting any of them outright.

Are you implying that handing over vast tracts of strategically invaluable land to people who advocate the outright destruction of the state as it exists today is a "fair resolution"? Then here, give me your house and home, and I'll stop sending my friends to kill you.

Zionist Lobby! Jews control the government! Quel suprise.

you need look no further than the ISraeli state for support of disgusting regimes worldwide:

If you're insinuating that the democratically elected government of Israel is a disgusting "regime", you're now telling the people that they are incapable of choosing their own leadership. "I know whats best for you better than you do".

Quel Suprise.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You're a [censored] joke. Wait til you Americans turn tail and hide when a 9/11 is happening every day in New York, Dallas, LA. Dean will be in office and you'll be begging Allah for mercy.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO this is a good point you make. What surprised me about the thread regarding targeted assassanation is how blase apparently most were to the years and years Israel has endured suicide terrorism. If this happened in the USA on a consistent and regular basis as it does in Israel, there are many in the USA that would be ready to bring out the nukes. IMO people in the USA for the most part way underrate the menace of this scourge.