argue with this:

[tweedyburd]

True, but then Israel doesn't target civilians like Iraq and terroists networks do. That doesn't mean that civilians don't die at their hands, but they don't actually target them in their operations. If they elected leaders like Saddam that do, that would be a legitimate point.

[tweedyburd]

Originally posted by Samsa


i guess you could point out that israel elects those people and iraq doesn't.

You mean you don't remember Saddam being re-elected earlier this year?

I remember seeing an editorial cartoon that had the ballot drawn up for Iraqis to vote on. It read:

Put a check by the candidate of your choice:

Saddam Husein

Ore Udye

[Tessellation]

America's "democratic reconstruction" in Afganistan is a joke, and it is not unlike what may happen to Iraq. The U.S. will merely allow Saddam II to ascend in power.

[Samsa]

Originally posted by tweedyburd


You mean you don't remember Saddam being re-elected earlier this year?

I remember seeing an editorial cartoon that had the ballot drawn up for Iraqis to vote on. It read:

Put a check by the candidate of your choice:

Saddam Husein

Ore Udye

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by tweedyburd
It's funny to hear all this 'they're complying with the UN,' buiness-as-usual attitude, and yet casually omit the fact that Iraq recently gave the U.S. a 15,000 page document that was a cut and paste job from the last time they submitted one. Needless to say, there was a laundry list of weaponry that wasn't accounted for and was not mentioned in the 'report,' such as something like 300 tons of anthrax, hundreds of missiles, etc etc.

These UN inspections are just Saddam buying himself some time--it's a puppet show--a cat and mouse chase, and little else. It's been proven that Saddam funds Hammas to kill Jewish civilians, and he's more concerned about maintaining the power he has than putting all his weapons on the table. And though he may not have weapons that reach us, he does have plenty of range on Israel, who is one of our primary allies.

Didn't the US seize that document the day before it was due to be delivered to the UN? Until a more impartial committee releases their assessment, I won't be taking any of these statements to heart. This was interesting:

Iraq Report Cited by Bush Does Not Exist - Agency Disavows
Report on Iraq Arms

Joseph Curl The Washington Times Friday, 27 September, 2002

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report
cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was
"six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not
exist.

"There's never been a report like that issued from this
agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said
yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's
headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq
to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman
of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear
capability for the United Nations.

In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the
inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied -- finally
denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic --
the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a
weapon.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," said the
president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi
leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass
destruction.

The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier
IAEA report. "He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy
Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report
saying that after the war they found out they were about six
months away."

Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the
IAEA in 1991. Many news agencies -- including The Washington
Times -- reported Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 comments as referring
to a 1998 IAEA report. The White House did not ask for a
correction from The Times.

Not 100% relative to the weapons list, but hey the precedent is certainly there. And funny you should mention Israel - who are thought to be possibly the most advanced of the non-nuclear powers in terms of nuclear capability. Hell, there have even been reports that they're stockpiling at Dimona. I guess we'll see how that pans out.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Mr_sister
aah, forget it, you win about the centrifugator thing, since i don't have any scources in english to back up my previous statements .

No, you were right in some ways. I wasn't aware of the centrifuge, and after reading into it after you mentioned it, it does seem to have been developed for the nuclear weapons program. It's just that developing weapons and actually having the capability to produce them are two different things. That said, there's an interesting article here that you may find... uh, interesting

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by tweedyburd
True, but then Israel doesn't target civilians like Iraq and terroists networks do. That doesn't mean that civilians don't die at their hands, but they don't actually target them in their operations.

That's debatable.

[tweedyburd]

Originally posted by DeviousJ


Until a more impartial committee releases their assessment, I won't be taking any of these statements to heart.

Somehow I doubt you'll be taking those things to heart no matter who releases a report.

I mean, c'mon. Saddam has denied the UN for years. Why would they've done the cut and paste job and then think, "Oh, it's not due until tomorrow, we'll just leave it like that, just in case the US decides to come and swipe it"? That would've been even more a foolish move on Saddam's part. He would've known we would catch on to what was going on (the omitted parts of he report, etc). Do you think he was going to add much more to those documents with 24 more hours?

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by tweedyburd


Somehow I doubt you'll be taking those things to heart no matter who releases a report.

I mean, c'mon. Saddam has denied the UN for years. Why would they've done the cut and paste job and then think, "Oh, it's not due until tomorrow, we'll just leave it like that, just in case the US decides to come and swipe it"? That would've been even more a foolish move on Saddam's part. He would've known we would catch on to what was going on (the omitted parts of he report, etc). Do you think he was going to add much more to those documents with 24 more hours?

I didn't mean the report was unfinished, I meant the US decided it would be ok to take this document the day before it was supposed to be released to the UN - basically they're fucking around, ignoring procedure, and not letting the UN inspectors handle the conclusions. And yes the report apparently could have been more substantial, but it's obviously going to contain some information previously provided. I'd imagine providing full documentation and evidence of all weapons programs in the past 30 years would take a while to pull together. The inspections are important, but the gun-to-the-head attitude of some countries is not the way to go about it, especailly as the hostility seems to be increasing as more concessions are made.

[severin]

Originally posted by Mayfuck


I'm not really sure about this but I'm thinking right now that perhaps a "policeman of the world" is necessary as in we have police in individual towns and cities to make sure law and order are seen through. Maybe there should be a nation or group of nations to see that there is law and order in the world and that these patrolling nations require arms of some sort. I know the U.S. is already such a nation (this is why it claims to need weapons while Iraq should not) and that its doing a bad job at it, but the concept of a police nation shouldn't be immediately dismissed. Not like its any country's divine right to have that power, but you have to have rules. I'm just trying to get it in an ethical/philisophical slant rather than a political one.

mhm, i see the point in some states being in place as the "world police" as you call it, but as in every real democracy, there should be a splitting between executive, legislative and judicative "persons", meanin, that a country can not be making the rules, judge and execute a sentence on its own, but there has to be an independent court who judges certain accusations, a group of legislators who define world law, and a group of countries who have the abilities to enforece it. i know it's impossible to have such a system at this moment, but i think it should be worked on to get something like this rolling.

btw: i haven't read the whole thread until now, because i felt i had to respond to your statement

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by severin
mhm, i see the point in some states being in place as the "world police" as you call it, but as in every real democracy, there should be a splitting between executive, legislative and judicative "persons", meanin, that a country can not be making the rules, judge and execute a sentence on its own, but there has to be an independent court who judges certain accusations, a group of legislators who define world law, and a group of countries who have the abilities to enforece it. i know it's impossible to have such a system at this moment, but i think it should be worked on to get something like this rolling.

btw: i haven't read the whole thread until now, because i felt i had to respond to your statement

Well, isn't that basically the idea behind the UN? If it worked properly, that is

[severin]

Originally posted by DeviousJ


Well, isn't that basically the idea behind the UN? If it worked properly, that is

i think it should be, but i just don't see it right now. there are no real international laws for great scale crimes like war. and there's definitly no force which could enforce them. i don't like the idea of having america (or russia for that matter) as a police. i'd rather see a military force which is there for just this law enforcement, which is put together from armys all over the world, and led by a council whit changing members, regardless of sice or economical importance of the said country...

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by severin
i think it should be, but i just don't see it right now. there are no real international laws for great scale crimes like war. and there's definitly no force which could enforce them. i don't like the idea of having america (or russia for that matter) as a police. i'd rather see a military force which is there for just this law enforcement, which is put together from armys all over the world, and led by a council whit changing members, regardless of sice or economical importance of the said country...

Well yeah, that's the main problem with the UN - they have no power without the backing of the main members. In fact, the idea of outright vetoing means that one country's interests can totally sway decisions. The only problem is that the policing would then be applied to every country, which would be a conflict of interests in a good number of cases. I expect it's pretty difficult for good people to get into a position to change any of this

[tweedyburd]

"I'd imagine providing full documentation and evidence of all weapons programs in the past 30 years would take a while to pull together"

They had how many days to get this together prior to that day? It just seems foolish to believe that Saddam and Co. would've actually provided the information they were supposed to in a great revelation before the report was due to the UN, after years of defying the UN. Obviously, they provided all of what they intended to show in the report as it was. Again, this is just Saddam buying himself some time...

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by tweedyburd
"I'd imagine providing full documentation and evidence of all weapons programs in the past 30 years would take a while to pull together"

They had how many days to get this together prior to that day? It just seems foolish to believe that Saddam and Co. would've actually provided the information they were supposed to in a great revelation before the report was due to the UN, after years of defying the UN. Obviously, they provided all of what they intended to show in the report as it was. Again, this is just Saddam buying himself some time...

That's very possible. I doubt all of their weapons have been dealt with, however they now have 2 choices - admit they're still around, and hope Bush doesn't say 'THEY'RE COMING RIGHT FOR US!', or miss them off the list, and use the time to deal with them. Or 3rd, do the above but conceal the weapons, which is becoming increasingly difficult (and dangerous) considering what the inspectors can do at the moment.

Yay New Year's political discussion!