CommanderJohnson

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: This could get real interesting, yo, Dredd, we have a possible Gammulan here. What do you think? Well, he's gutsy enough. quote:Okay, Guys, there is something to remember here. Crism Jihad tends to play dirty. Saddam can be easily suspected of either having WMD's or supplying it with money. A suspicion isn't enough to justify an attack. They need proof. Period. Do any of you *KNOW* what INTEL we have on Iraq? Or what we're doing? It's a safe bet that we will invade her (again) to make sure, but until that happens..... (You may get to wait 25 years until the Freedom of Information Act kicks in. That's assuming it doesn't remain Classified....) Proof isn't needed, the suspicion of him trying to get WMDs and his refusal to cooperate fully in proving he doesn't have them is enough, since (getting back to the original topic of the thread), it's in America's best interest to attack. We may not be POSITIVE, but the huge impact of waiting (such as nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks against the United States or it's allies, or destabilization of the region by Iraq becoming a hedgemony protected by WMDs), far outweighs the disadvantage to it (some of our troops will be at risk). Also, one point we have seemed to been ignoring in our discussion is the time frame. Even IF Menchise is right (which he's not) about him not currently being a threat right NOW, there's no reason to expect him not to be a threat in the future once he is able to rebuild his military and WMD program (which even if he's not doing it NOW, he would when he's not under scrutiny). It'd be irresponsible of the United States to be pretty sure that Iraq is a threat *or* will become a threat, and then WAIT for them to do it before attacking. That just puts MORE lives in danger, American and foreign, both military and civilian. International politics is not run by the US court system where PROOF is needed, and Iraq and Saddam need to be treated "fairly". The dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, is percieved as an evil ba$tard, and he is going to suffer for it by a US invasion. International politics is run by a very simple cost-benefit analysis (the way it should be until there is a time when there are no competing cultures/religions/etc), usually factoring in, marginally, democratic values of the other country in the analysis. The way it works in this scenario is the following: Cost of attacking Iraq: 1. American troops at risk. 2. Money. 3. Other countries, who *CANT* and *WONT* DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT get "annoyed" at the US. (here's a dime, call someone who cares) Benefit: 1. Long standing regional threat (neighbors in danger if Iraq military becomes powerful) removed. 2. Long standing international threat removed (he gets WMDs, it's bad, also funding stops for suicide bombers families). 3. Future threat removed (it's a dictatorship and he's aggressive. no reason why he would change since the gulf war) 4. Threat to US oil removed. 5. Civilians rights in Iraq become respected more due to the destruction of a dictatorship. 6. Sanctions would be removed, helping the population. 7. The Kurds don't need to worry about getting killed by Saddam anymore. Oh yeah, and just in general, our argument is based on the concept of using the information we know. Sure, we don't know EVERYTHING, but from what we do know, Iraq should be bombed to hell and invaded. If there was a lot of important information "hidden" from US, i'm sure there would be *a lot more* leaks and protests from in the CIA saying that Iraq ISNT a threat. Unclassified CIA report link a few posts ago too. It may be doctored, but you can't doctor it THAT much. Also, that was presented to congress. They don't typically edit the stuff that is sent to Congress enough to change the entire MEANING (ex. They didn't change "Iraq is not building chemical weapons" to "Iraq is building chemical weapons" for when they released it. There's has to be SOME degree of trust, since EVERYONE gets their information somewhere, and the actual intelligence collection agencies are the best you can usually get)

quote: quote:Originally posted by Menchise: quote:It's Safe To Assume that Saddam is getting WMDsIs that all? The article has absolutely nothing substantial to say about WMD. It's just a bunch of baseless and inane opinions that the writer has pulled out of his ass. His idea of "evidence" is one ambiguous reference to "many experts". Experts in what? Archery?! The main thing that matters from that article is that he knows the US is after him, and the references to the amount of time Saddam has had to prepare, anywhere from 4-11 years to get WMDs. If he knows the US is against him and is/was going to attack, as contended before, he would logically be trying to GET WMDs right now to defend himself. If not, it'll be a easy victory for the US when we invade. quote: quote:Iraq Wouldn't even let Weapons Inspectors back after 9/11Pencils News for Kids? Are you serious? That article leaves out so much it's not even regarded as real news. That article isn't there to draw a conclusion, it's there to support the paragraph below that you quoted. Saddam *HAS* to have something to hide if he STILL refuses to let weapons inspectors in when it's OBVIOUS that the US is going to mark him as supporting terrorism (whether he does or not), and invade. quote: quote:One special note with that fact and the connecting article, is that Saddam deserves to get bombed out of STUPIDITY. Ok, the US is attacked on 9/11. We declare a war on terrorism. We ask Saddam to let in weapons inspectors. Saddam, while probably being able to guess that if he doesn't, the US is going to attack him, says "no". It's his own fault for the consequences if he's stupid enough to try to stand up to a country that really, really, really wants to kill some terrorists. Blair Believes Iraq is trying to get WMDsYou seem to have completely ignored the parts of the Banfield-Aziz interview to which I referred. Why should I bother responding to your sources if you're going to ignore mine? I've read that article/interview multiple times, and I haven't ignored it. I'm sorry for my choice in wording as Saddam "supporting terrorists", because there is no proof that he is supporting Al Quieda. All i'm saying is that it was obvious that the US was going to attack, your INTERVIEW even says that Saddam knows the US has been trying to get rid of him and is probably going to attack, and then Saddam is STUPID enough to not let weapons inspectors back in? I doubt he has THAT little concern for his own life. He's hiding something. You still have a good number of sources to go through. Responding to the weakest two doesn't prove much, and Jaguar is still piling em on. [ 07-28-2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

The point of the article though, was that Iraq is getting potentially dangerous items regardless of the sanctions. There are a few positions you can take: If the sanctions work, the people are starving (your whole humanitarian crisis babble). The article proves that the sanctions are being subverted. The goods gained by subversion is obviously being used to help his military and WMD program since it ISNT helping the Iraqi people. EDIT: Oh yeah, and be sure to get to all of the other articles, especially the CIA report. Also, Jaguar is absolutely right. With what you know about the suicide bombings, i'm surpirsed you didn't know that the reason why it is so easy to GET suicide bombers is their lives are meaningless anyway, and all it takes to put a lot of em over the edge is money for their family (since the ones that do it solely for their people w/o needing money mostly killed themselves off awhile ago) [ 07-28-2002, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

He supported trolls. Click all of SCs links above, they give you the whole story. Just be sure to go to all the links you see. And since I finally have a reason to post on the court martial thread, one thing i've wanted to say: GUILTY! GUILTY! THE DEFENDANT IS FOUND GUILTY! [ 07-28-2002, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

You got some slow DSL, took me like 5-10.

Galcommie? Commie? We going on a war against the leftists too? YEAH!!!!!

Hey, just a small quote from that article in your last post, Menchise. quote: BANFIELD: Notwithstanding the mess that is Israel-Palestine, do you think it serves any purpose for this government to send checks to the families of suicide bombers, effectively promoting this kind of activity? AZIZ: We support the legitimate struggle of the Palestinian people. We have been in support of the Palestinian people since the conflict started in the ÔÇÖ40s, not only this government, even when Iraq was led by a monarch. The Iraqi government and the Iraqi people supported the Palestinian cause. So we support it. We still support, and weÔÇÖll continue to support the Palestinian cause. But this is not terrorism. This is not terrorism. We didnÔÇÖt have any relationship with the Taliban. We didnÔÇÖt have any relationship with bin Laden. We didnÔÇÖt have any relationship with IRA and Northern Ireland. We didnÔÇÖt have relationship with many groups and organizations, which were doing actions, acts, which were defined as terrorist attacks. Simply, we do not believe in that. But I strongly believe in the legitimacy of the struggle of the Palestinian people, and we will continue to support them. Their families need to live. Why not supporting them? The Iraqis are FUNDING the suicide bombers in Israel, just like we said earlier on this topic. That's decent justification for attacking Iraq right there. Iraq is directly funding attacks on one of our allies and destabilizing a region. As for "articles" that support our claim. Sanctions aren't hurting his military Saddam is NOT Meeting Sanction Obligations and COULD use the money from Illegal Oil Sales to Help his Population It's Safe To Assume that Saddam is getting WMDs Iraq Wouldn't even let Weapons Inspectors back after 9/11 One special note with that fact and the connecting article, is that Saddam deserves to get bombed out of STUPIDITY. Ok, the US is attacked on 9/11. We declare a war on terrorism. We ask Saddam to let in weapons inspectors. Saddam, while probably being able to guess that if he doesn't, the US is going to attack him, says "no". It's his own fault for the consequences if he's stupid enough to try to stand up to a country that really, really, really wants to kill some terrorists. Blair Believes Iraq is trying to get WMDs Here's the CIA Report on Iraq's WMDs Also, note that Iraq ADMITTED to using chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war, and thus admitted to having them. There's no reason why he wouldn't CONTINUE to try to get more WMDs. Also, note that that was a *CIA REPORT* not political spin by Bush. A Whole Site of Articles Yes, Saddam can and will get Nukes I hope that's enough articles for you. If not, just run a search on google or on some other news site. The warrants in these articles are much better than the peace loving ex-weapons inspectors. As i've said before, your authors start at the "humanitarian crisis" of sanctions and wars, ASSUMING that Saddam actually cares about his people *and* assuming that Saddam will be overthrown in time *and* assuming, for some odd reason, that Saddam would not want weapons of mass destruction. None of that makes sense, especially the last point, since ANY country with a dictator would want WMDs since it fortifies their power. All the articles I cited look at the evidence, evaluate it logically, then come to the conclusion that Saddam has not demonstrated he isn't a threat, and that the US shouldn't be STUPID enough to wait for him to be in a position of power before attacking him. Wars shouldn't be fair, they should be massacres, and the US should be the one winning.

Yeah!!!!

Join the Air Force if you want to skydive. Was reading some info on them and their skydiving area is the "safest in the country" and it's the only place you do a solo jump the first time. Of course they ARE training you to jump out of a plane if you get shot down...but still, it'd be fun!

Farscape Rocks. So does Stargate: SG-1. Only thing I really disagree with you on is Law and Order. Those series rock (except the latest one, "Crime and Punishment" (the one that uses real cases in real courts without actors) is way too niche for me to watch reguarly).

Yeah, it was a good movie. Makes you NOT want to be in the navy...at least not in a submarine. SPOILER: Wasn't it sad that guy with a wife went into the reactor and got killed? [ 07-26-2002, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

quote:Originally posted by Menchise: I'm still waiting for you to provide something.The very obvious reason why we aren't providing these articles you are is because if you turn on the news, you'll see government officials or news services providing evidence and giving statements putting Saddam somewhere between "a rogue nation" to "the most serious threat to our national security". Almost all sources are concurring that he's after WMDs. Turn on "On location" at about 2:00 AM EST....I think it's on one of the networks, and it's on after Chris Matthews: Hardball on weekdays. It's been on daily for the past week talking about how when Saddam's brother-in-law defected he told us that he has WMDs, and the government officials were making the same arguments we are. If Saddam didn't have anything to hide, he'd let weapons inspectors in.

Saw it last night (Thursday) at 8:00. That movie rocks!! SEE IT!

Thanks SC. The source of my problem was because I had sound coming from the motherboard AND my sound card, and it caused some sort of conflict that wasn't apparent from the device manager. So, if anyone has my problem, fix that. (but be sure not to wipe/ovverwrite your BIOS...that's why i've been gone for a week) I'm glad you told me about the video drivers, since now i'm operating under the ones that wont wreck my video card. Well, problem solved.

Ok, I don't know where else to beg for help, and I already ran a search query for my problem, but here goes. I just got a new computer. Virtually empty 120 GB HD, running XP PRO. All the other important stuff is in my sig. I install BCM. Patch it to 1.0.07. I launch to space, I can fly for under 2 minutes, the screen freezes, I hear the sound loop, and I have to physically restart the computer.

I believe all drugs should be legalized (and thus regulated). That would solve a number of problems. 1. The MASSIVE amounts of money going into the drug war with no real effect. If legalized, the criminal element would no longer have a foothold because companies would start mass producing the drugs, prices would drop, and it wouldn't be worth their while to do it in the "back-alley", and it'd always be "safer" when regulated. 2. The overcrowding of prisons and the court systems with people using drugs. Why lock up people who decide to hurt themselves? It's their own choice to be morons, let them. 3. Getting rid of the total "demonization" of the drugs which makes a lot of people want to do them. Society makes them "bad", so people rebel. The less "bad" they are portrayed to be, the less of a "thrill" they would be. 4. Killing off morons. If drugs are legalized, total morons who WANT to do drugs that never had the money or the skill to get them before, will be able to...and then die. Less idiots in the world.

Just got upgraded....wow, my computer ROCKS!!!

Jaguar sort of covered the important stuff. And regarding your article, that's far before the democracy was elected and met. Also, that article was pointing out the reality that AT THAT TIME (6 months ago, not now under the new government) the minority groups that were oppressed by the Pashtuns, decided to get a little bit of revenge and kill some (although innocent) Pashtuns. The majority of it is over by now. If you look at most news services, you'll see articles saying how Saddam is trying to get WMDs that are at LEAST as credible as yours saying he's not. The "majority" of Afghans that liked the Taliban were the ones who SUPPORTED their practices. The minority groups were being oppressed by those people. Sorry about implying your a Saddam lover, the implication was more rhetorical than factual. The point of that paragraph though, was to point out that *IF* he is trying to get them, it'll save a lot more lives by stopping him now (without using WMDs on him) instead of waiting for him to GET THEM, in which case we would quite possibly use WMDs to take him out, which would kill a lot more people.

Legalization and regulation of drugs in the US? Good idea? Bad idea? [ 07-18-2002, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

Hey SC PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE tell me you arent changing the "ultimate" system specs on future games to take this into account right? My poor, poor, porr GeForce 4 is already outdated [ 07-18-2002, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Dredd ]

NOOOOOOOOOOO! I just bought a Geforce 4!!!!

quote:Originally posted by Lotharr: Some people's crimes are so heinous throw away the key. However, in my opinion, the vast majority could be rehabilitated. How? The US justice system and the legislation around it is not set up to rehabilitate. Look at Megan's Law. If they rehabilitated sexual predators, why would they need legislation warning people? If they let people out on parole, why do they need to have a parole officer unless they think they aren't rehabilitated! Lets assume that prisons intend to rehabilitate. If your in prison for 20 years, i'm pretty sure that you'd have taken all the "rehabilitation classes" by at least 8. What are the other 12 years for? The entire justice system needs to be re-worked to rehabilitate, or they shouldn't be letting ANYONE out of prison (at least for violent offenses).

quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, for some reason you seem to ignore history, and I think that's the second time i've said it on various topics. What's your excuse for BEFORE the sanctions? Why didn't the Iraqi people, who were OPPRESSED by DICTATORSHIP rise up? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because they preferred Saddam to Khomeini. I don't really know who Khomeini is, but how is there not another people just like Khomeini now that they prefer Saddam to? Maybe it's just a better idea for us to kick Saddam out set up a democractic government for them and have the UN watch it. Democracy is always going to beat a dictatorship since the voice of the people is heard. And the UN, as flawed as they may be, watch for problems when they are involved. quote: Look at Afghanistan now. Two thirds of the territory is controlled by warlords (the former Northern Alliance) who rob civilians at will. They're even worse than the Taliban were. History warned of this too (these warlords did the same things before the Taliban took power and drove them out). In all cases, the interests of the Afghan people have been ignored. Now, once again, they have to worry about the troops - who are supposed to defend the people - looting the people's homes. You can thank the US government for that. For some reason you seem to think that even *IF* your post is true, that it's somehow different from before the US invasion. At least there are more human rights under the current democratic government, and rights for women, as opposed to under the Taliban, which did at LEAST what is going on now. Also, I fail to see how the new DEMOCRACY is making it so the peoples voices arent heard? Sure, it's not as great as the US democracy, but it's a whole lot better than the Taliban. I also fail to see where there's rampant problems with the new leadership destroying the population. If it's been reported, i'm betting it's been stopped by now. quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even if Iraq doesn't HAVE WMDs, there is a huge threat if he actually manages to get them, and he *IS* trying to get them. Sure, maybe the news reports saying he has enough WMDs to wipe out the Middle East is a little bit skewed, but there's at least a LITTLE bit of truth in the biased news reports, and that little bit has to at LEAST be that he's TRYING TO GET THEM, and that's threat enough to wipe him out. Why does he need em if he isn't going to use em? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You should ask President Bush that question. The USA has more WMD than any other country. Does HE intend to use them? Russia actually has more WMD than any other country. They just can't find all of theirs. The reason why the US has so many is because: 1. It's hard to store and get rid of em all safely. 2. Other countries still pose a threat with them. 3. Other ENTITIES still pose a threat with them. 4. Also, if you read about the Nuclear Posture Review, it's highly likeyl he will use TNW (Tactical Nuclear Weapons), if a country on the "axis of evil" gets WMDs, notably Iraq. That's yet another reason why we should invade Iraq. If we don't, and Iraq gets WMDs, a lot more civilians are going to die from Nuclear attacks (even though they are supposed to be precise and go to underground bunkers), than if we bomb him to hell. And no, i'm sorry, but we WILL use WMDs on Iraq if Saddam gets them, since the US population, unlike you, does not like DICTATORS who HATE THE UNITED STATES having WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. It's just one of those things that you try to prevent, and then remove. Besides, the US using them is irrelevent to the issue of Iraq. Iraq has no RIGHT to WMDs, and in fact I believe they are part of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), which states the only nuclear nations, and states that all non-nuclear nations will not get or attempt to get nuclear weapons. I don't know how many ways it can be repeated, but Iraq having WMDs is a major threat to the entire threat to the Middle East. The United States having them just makes sure no one else is going to be stupid enough to use them. quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And dont you dare say "to protect against a US invasion" because if Saddam would become a normal member of the international community, we wouldn't be threatening to invade him to begin with! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Define a 'normal' member. Follow international treaties? Follow agreements established after losing a war (reminds me of Germany not following em after WW1)? That'd be good for starters, and after awhile maybe stop oppressing his people and threatning to wipe out the Kurds in Northern Iraq? quote: Bush has demonstrated more aggressive militancy than Saddam ever has. Saddam only wanted Kuwait, Bush wants the entire region, and recent history has clearly demonstrated that the US government has no regard for the civilians of the region. Millions have already died as a result of this. Ok, lets think here for a second. Who invaded Kuwait? Saddam. Who didn't retreat when we told him we'd bomb him back to the stone age? Saddam. Who got bombed back to the stone age and lost the war? Saddam. Who got slapped by the *UN* *AND* the US with economic sanctions *for* invading to begin with? Saddam. Who is REFUSING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE UN in order to get the SACTIONS removed? Saddam. What is killing the "millions of people"? The sanctions. The CAUSE of the sanctions and them not being removed is Saddam. The EFFECT of the sanctions is people dying. Under your "dream world", he either would have: A. Taken over Kuwait, no international intervention massacred millions of innocent people. OR B. Would have been invaded, beaten, then we just leave him alone to get better armed forces. (including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons!!!) The people weren't rising up prior to the invasion of kuwait or during it, so why are they going to rise up now? Your logic makes no sense, and neither does your explanation of the US being militant and wanting to take over the region. We want the oil, sure, but we DONT want colonies, and we arent KILLING PEOPLE to get it. I fail to see how Bush has more "aggressive militancy" than Saddam. WE invade when threatened. He invades for the hell of it. Just because we're more powerful than everyone else economically and control the world, it's not militancy. If we dont get what we want, we don't invade the country unless there's justification for it to begin with. Afghanistan had TERRORIST CAMPS *AND* was an oppressive regime. Iraq is breaking international treaties, trying to get WMDs, is a threat to the Middle East AND the US. They should be invaded. The United States is NEVER going to invade any democracy in the Middle East unless they are actually attacking our forces. Saddam has no problem with it.

First, Jaguar's article is 100% true. I especially liked and agree with the part about the Europeans forgetting that even if they manage to integrate some war-mongering country (Germany in the article), it's because the US blew that country to hell first. Without the US, Miloshovic would still be in power in Bosnia too... quote:Originally posted by Menchise: I disagree with the negative assumption. It is common sense that the Iraqi people will act for their best interests and rise up against Saddam. The economic sanctions are preventing this, among other things.Ok, for some reason you seem to ignore history, and I think that's the second time i've said it on various topics. What's your excuse for BEFORE the sanctions? Why didn't the Iraqi people, who were OPPRESSED by DICTATORSHIP rise up? It's the same flawed ideas as the people who were against bombing Afghanistan after 9/11 "We shouldn't bomb and invade them, then they'll stop. Bombing and invading is what they want" Well gee, if you look at HISTORY, you'll realize that sometimes it takes a little bit of violence to get things done. World War II, the softline European countries didn't do anything about Germany, and they paid for it in lives. Even if Iraq doesn't HAVE WMDs, there is a huge threat if he actually manages to get them, and he *IS* trying to get them. Sure, maybe the news reports saying he has enough WMDs to wipe out the Middle East is a little bit skewed, but there's at least a LITTLE bit of truth in the biased news reports, and that little bit has to at LEAST be that he's TRYING TO GET THEM, and that's threat enough to wipe him out. Why does he need em if he isn't going to use em? And dont you dare say "to protect against a US invasion" because if Saddam would become a normal member of the international community, we wouldn't be threatening to invade him to begin with! Also, why does everyone seem to forget that Saddam is one man, and he was aggressive once when he knew he'd probably get beaten, he's still in power, and there's no reason why he isn't going to be agressive again? That sorta proves what he's going to use the WMDs for if he gets em! There's a clear threat if he's even TRYING to get them, because it's obvious that he is an aggressive/militant leader and there's no reason why him getting beaten ONCE is going to change his mind.

The main problem with our justice system is it's there to punish, not rehabilitate. If you can't fix someone, ADMIT IT, then just lock em all up for life.