The Dixie Chicks were right.

[MKSheppard]

Every electoral cycle, the old arguments for ditching the electoral college and electing the president by popular election comes up and, unfortunately, dies immediately after the election.

We have the technology to make a national popular election of the President feasible. Why we don't escapes me.

Loading......
Bullshit detected from inhabitant from high population state...



Load Small State Response File = Maryland

Maybe it's because we would like to have an actual fucking voice
in national politics, rather than being a dumping ground while you
fucktards in New York and California decide the election on your own.



Newsflash, BITCH, if Al Gore had won his fuckign HOME STATE of
TENNEESEE, which is something no presidental candidate has failed
to do in a very long time...except for Gore of course......the entire
mess in FLA would have been irrevelant and Al Gore would be
the 43rd president not, W. So the system works Pay
fucking attention to the small states to win.

[Darth Wong]

MkSheppard's message brought to you by the Small-population State Government SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP.

Funny how special interest groups are only a bad thing when they're someone else's special interest, eh?

[MKSheppard]

MkSheppard's message brought to you by the Small-population State Government SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP.

Ah, so you think that Maryland and the other small states should be
routinely assfucked up the ass each time a presidental election rolls
around?

From Red Imperator: "They'll ratify an amendment to legalize cannibalism before they abolish the electoral college."

[Darth Wong]

MkSheppard's message brought to you by the Small-population State Government SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP.

Ah, so you think that Maryland and the other small states should be
routinely assfucked up the ass each time a presidental election rolls
around?

Ah, so you think that <insert special interest group name here> should be routinely assfucked each time an election rolls around?

That's what I thought; you responded with a standard special-interest group whinge. Maybe you need expensive lobbyists in the capital too; oh wait a minute, I forgot that you already have those.

[MKSheppard]

Ah, so you think that <insert special interest group name here> should be routinely assfucked each time an election rolls around?

Ah, sort of like you guys keep getting assfucked by QUEBEC?

That's what I thought; you responded with a standard special-interest group whinge. Maybe you need expensive lobbyists in the capital too; oh wait a minute, I forgot that you already have those.

Don't edit your own fucking messages when us peons can't.

[RedImperator]

The electoral college balances the will of the people with the fact that the states are sovereign and equal entities and that, no matter how much people bitch about it, it's unacceptable that Presidential elections are decided entirely among the large population states.

Besides that, you'd need a Constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college, and you'll never get 38 states to approve one (I doubt you could get 2/3 of the Senate to ratify it, for that matter). The small states will legalize cannibalism before they abolish the electoral college.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, so you think that <insert special interest group name here> should be routinely assfucked each time an election rolls around?

Ah, sort of like you guys keep getting assfucked by QUEBEC?

Which I wouldn't have a problem with if their government influence was proportional to their population, instead of being grossly disproportional as it is today. Sorry Shep, but your rebuttal flew wide of the mark. If anything, it only reinforced what I'm saying. Proportional representation would reduce Quebec's influence.

Don't edit your own fucking messages when us peons can't.

Since I made that addition before anyone else even posted in the thread, don't whine about it. If I made it after someone else posted, it would say "edited x times by Darth Wong".

[Perinquus]

That's not true. He did not make any such determination. At most, he said that the Iraqis were cooperating, but not as much as he'd like- he wanted them to be proactive. On the eve of the war, in his final report, he said that they *had* started being proactive.

And it was bloody well too late by then. They stalled and obfuscated, and shot at U.S. planes for 12 years, then at the last minute, when it became clear they were about to get hit, tried to save things by doing an about face. They should have been fully cooperative from the start, and they weren't, which was predictable with a man like Saddam in charge.

I just hope the thousands of people you approved of killing for the high-minded idea of the credibility of the greatest power on the Earth died for something, because right now they died for jack and shit, and jack just left town.

They died so we could get Saddam out of power, which is hardly jack and shit. That statement is so stupid (not to mention trite) I'm struggling to hang on to my temper. And no power on earth has ever taken more care to keep collateral damage to a minimum than we just did. By your logic, the thousands of people who died in the liberation of Europe half a century ago died for jack and shit.

I just love it how people like you blame us for the deaths inflicted by our troops. Of course the fact that in the end we have almost certainly saved thousands more, even tens of thousands perhaps, who will not now end up in mass graves or go through Saddam's torture chambers means nothing.

Mafia bosses are interested in their 'credibility'- they break people's legs to jeep it. I would think that supposedly freedom-loving democracies are held to a better standard, but then again, the US has broken many legs over it's credibility in the past, to the detriment of the population in question. (See for example: Iran).

Sneer if you like, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Credibility is a very real concept whether you recognize it or not. When your nation lacks it, bad things happen to you. For example, on September 30 four Soviet diplomats were kidnapped in Beirut, Lebanon by Islamic Liberation Organisation, which was thought to be a front for the Iranian backed Hezbollah. One of the Russians was killed but the other three were released unharmed after a relative of the terrorist group's leaders was kidnapped and killed by the Soviet KGB. The terrorists promptly released their Russian hostages, and wanted no part of kidnapping Russians after that. The knew the KGB would deal with them ruthlessly. This one death very likely saved more Russian and perhaps even Lebanese deaths further down the line.

Osama Bin Laden felt secure in attacking the U.S. because he believed we had gone soft. Saddam felt safe in defying the U.S. because he felt we had gone soft. As I said earlier, they saw us as the U.S. that ran out of Vietnam when it got too tough, that ran out of Lebanon when a few of our marines got killed, that ran out of Somalia when just 18 of our soldiers got killed. The U.S. with no stomach for a fight. The U.S. that had plenty of high-tech weapons and no courage. The U.S. that will fire off a few cruise missiles, but won't risk shedding precious blood. Listen to Osama Bin Laden’s rants. That's exactly how he saw us, and there's no denying it.

As I said, a nations's credibility is real and important, and consequences flow from it, or the lack of it. Lives really can be lost or saved because of it, whether you recognize that fact or not. It's possible that if our reputation had not been one of weakness, the atrocity of 9/11/01 would not have taken place because Al Quaeda might have felt it was too risky to attack us.

This would be the point where someone with a strong sense of morality would take me to task for 'supporting' Saddam, but frankly, I don't give a shit. Killing 6-10,000 people wasn't going to ressurect the thousands of those already gone at that butcher's hands (all of them killed under the uncaring or conniving watch of the rest of the world),

No, it would merely prevent thousands of others from sharing the same fate, but as I said earlier, I guess they don't count.

and I'm not impressed by recent previous efforts (Afghanistan for one) or the recent history of the United States in the matter of 'nation-building' whatsoever. What's worse, the US went precisely the wrong way about it to ensure that it could get international support after the fact. Talk about a way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Well see how it goes eventually. Right now it is much too soon to tell.

Define *really* cooperating? What would satisfy you? In case you don't remember, the Iraqis were meant to show that they had destroyed all their B and C stockpiles. How exactly do you meet that standard of proof?

How about not obstructing the inspectors to the point where they could no longer do their jobs at all, and left the country. So what if it was Butler who ordered them out? The Iraqis could acheive the same end of getting them out just by being obstructionist, and frustrating them into giving up, and not look as bad because the inspectors would go on their own. It's not technically kciking them out, but it amounts to the same thing. You can't convince me that's not exactly what the Iraqis intended. That's not cooperating.

Nope, there's what you can prove, and there's assumptions that may or may not be the case, irrespective of your gut feeling.

No, there's what you know. There are things you see going on, and abslutely no doubt remains, but you can't get enough to take to court. Whe you see a couple of guys standing out on a street corner, and cars are constantly stopping there, it's not just an assumption that they're dealing drugs. They're dealing drugs. But you can never catch them with the stuff on them because they have lookouts and runners, and they see those nice shiny blue and white police cars coming ahead of time. So you never have enough to take to court. They're still dealing drugs.

Similarly, there may be evidence you have, but it's classified, and you can't risk making it public, because it would allow the enemy to pinpoint the source it came from, and that source it too valuable to lose. That's just one scenario I can think of in a case like this.

Now you're down to completely ignoring what I said and just repeating yourself. Have fun with the dogma, don't bother to see if an answer might actually be in what I wrote there.

That's because it's not. I want to hear a good, credible explanation how, for 12 years the Iraqis can violate no less than 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and remain in material breach of disarmament obligations, and still be "cooperating". You haven't given me one.

The search is still ongoing.

"Iraq is the size of California" only flies for so long.

Axis Kast answered that for me.

I never cared one way or the other that Iraq had the laughably misnamed 'WMD'. I was ahppy to see the inspectors there for as long as that regime existed- because I never assumed WMD to be there in the first place. I waited for the evidence.

Which never would have been forthcoming, since the inspectors' success was contingent upon volunary cooperation from Saddam's regime, which they weren't getting.

Furthermore, if I was one of *those* people, I'd point out that the inspection effort was still growing when war was declared, and you have totally occupied the place now for some months.

Again, Axis Kast answered that one.

No, I called you on your error that the Iraqis kicked the inspectors out. The US placed spies and sabotaged the process- and then you have the gall to claim that it's ok to turn around and use that as an excuse for war? Who's spin machine is in overdrive? Hell, let's just call the Reichstag fire legitimate while we're at it!

If the Iraqis unconvered spies, they still don't get to stop cooperating. That's the price of losing a war. As Brennus the Gaul said to the Romans in 395BC “Vae Victis!” They can protest in the security council, and take the matter to the court of world opinion. Maybe that would get them a satisfactory result, and maybe not - though there are plenty of nations opposed to the US in the UN who would have helped them apply diplomatic pressure. But they don't get to defy their obligations under the cease fire.

No, you're a bullshit artist. The inspectors used their surveillance techniques specifically to monitor compliance in accordance with their mandate to disarm Iraq, which is SUPPOSEDLY what this war was all about. Then you say it's ok to pervert their mandate to spy on the Iraqi government, not part of it's mandate, and try and dress it up as legitimate? Goebbels would be taking notes right now if he could hear this.

Oh come off it. I am talking about the way international politics is played in the real world. Grow up little boy. It is simply unrealistic to expect the US or any other nation not to seek to gather intelligence on an untrustworthy and tyrannical ruler such as Saddam Hussein. If he’s even suspected of harboring or financing terrorists that may carry out attacks on American targets, then the US government has a positive duty to obtain the best possible intelligence it can.

Assuming what you're trying to prove- they were only 'obfuscating and obstructing' if you're already decided on the issue of what they were 'obfuscating and obstructing' about. Sorry.

12 years of violating UN resolutions and shooting at our planes does not make it necessary for us to assume anything. The Iraqis weren't cooperating.

Ah I see, because we all know blowjobs are more important than the invasion of another country. But keep your irrelevant sovereignty nitpick.

Nitpick my ass. Every citizen in this country, including the president is subject to US law; its authority over every citizen is absolute. The UN does not exercise anything like that level of authority over the United States.

Ah yes, the publically provided material to make the case for war is all bullshit, but you appeal to the unknowable instead.

Well since the publicly provided material was sufficiently compelling to sell the war to several other nations, I would hardly call it bullshit.

As for the unknowable, it may be unknowable to the likes of you and me. However, every government is privy to loads of information that is classified. There can be little doubt that there is a great deal of classified information on Iraq.

Me personally, none. But then again, you still have MI6 standing by claims that Saddam really was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

Without evidence.

Yes, I’m sure MI6 doesn’t have a shred of evidence to back up their claims. The Niger document was only a part of what they had.

That's some democracy you got there. They make rubbish claims in public, but in private I'm sure the information is really quite good.

In case you missed it, some of those claims came from the UN and say things like:

69. Argumentation Iraq employs in support of its claim includes the demand that the Commission prove to Iraq that it continues to hold prohibited weapons and associated capabilities. This argumentation, were it to be accepted, would reverse the onus of disclosure clearly placed upon Iraq by the Security Council and instead would require the Commission to make the full disclosure of proscribed items, which only Iraq can make.

70. The biological weapons area is a revealing example of these facts. For half of the eight-year period of the relationship between Iraq and the Special Commission, Iraq declared that it had no biological weapons programme. When that claim was no longer tenable, Iraq provided a series of disclosure statements all of which have been found by international experts, on multiple occasions, to be neither credible nor verifiable.

73. It must be recorded, however, that for this to be the case, a satisfactory resolution of the question of the chemical warfare agent VX needs to be achieved, because of its implications for both the chemical weapons and the missile files. This involves not just the question of VX weaponization, but also the more fundamental question of Iraq's record of VX production. Again, there can be no substitute for full disclosure by Iraq on this matter, a disclosure that has never been made.

Italics added.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/sres98-920.htm

That’s just a couple of lines from a single document, yet it indicates in no uncertain terms that the Iraqis were not cooperating.

Don't be an ass! He's the one claiming that Bush must be lying and there is no other explanation. If someone can point out a credible alternative explanation to refute that assertion, it is up to him, as the person making that claim, to support his assertion by showing that that credible alternative cannot be so.

I was referring to the Al-Qaeda/Iraq link claim. It is not up to anyone to prove that they are not connected, it's up to those who says they are to prove that they are.

I never asked him to prove the Iraq/Al Quaeda connection. Where are you getting this?

Applying how you arrest individuals to declaring war on millions of people, killing thousands of them and possibly inspiring a generation of increased hate for the goal of credibility is ill-advised, IMO.

Well, as you say, it’s your opinion – and one I don’t happen to share. We allow a certain extra amount of latitude in diplomacy, but when you get right down to it, you’re still dealing with people, so the same principles still apply. Come to that, when you deal with Saddam, you’re still dealing with a thug, so the same principles really apply.

[Perinquus]

That's not true. He did not make any such determination. At most, he said that the Iraqis were cooperating, but not as much as he'd like- he wanted them to be proactive. On the eve of the war, in his final report, he said that they *had* started being proactive.

And it was bloody well too late by then. They stalled and obfuscated, and shot at U.S. planes for 12 years, then at the last minute, when it became clear they were about to get hit, tried to save things by doing an about face. They should have been fully cooperative from the start, and they weren't, which was predictable with a man like Saddam in charge.

I just hope the thousands of people you approved of killing for the high-minded idea of the credibility of the greatest power on the Earth died for something, because right now they died for jack and shit, and jack just left town.

They died so we could get Saddam out of power, which is hardly jack and shit. That statement is so stupid (not to mention trite) I'm struggling to hang on to my temper. And no power on earth has ever taken more care to keep collateral damage to a minimum than we just did. By your logic, the thousands of people who died in the liberation of Europe half a century ago died for jack and shit.

I just love it how people like you blame us for the deaths inflicted by our troops. Of course the fact that in the end we have almost certainly saved thousands more, even tens of thousands perhaps, who will not now end up in mass graves or go through Saddam's torture chambers means nothing.

Mafia bosses are interested in their 'credibility'- they break people's legs to jeep it. I would think that supposedly freedom-loving democracies are held to a better standard, but then again, the US has broken many legs over it's credibility in the past, to the detriment of the population in question. (See for example: Iran).

Sneer if you like, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Credibility is a very real concept whether you recognize it or not. When your nation lacks it, bad things happen to you. For example, on September 30, 1985 four Soviet diplomats were kidnapped in Beirut, Lebanon by Islamic Liberation Organisation, which was thought to be a front for the Iranian backed Hezbollah. One of the Russians was killed but the other three were released unharmed after a relative of the terrorist group's leaders was kidnapped and killed by the Soviet KGB. The terrorists promptly released their Russian hostages, and wanted no part of kidnapping Russians after that. The knew the KGB would deal with them ruthlessly. This one death very likely saved more Russian and perhaps even Lebanese deaths further down the line.

Osama Bin Laden felt secure in attacking the U.S. because he believed we had gone soft. Saddam felt safe in defying the U.S. because he felt we had gone soft. As I said earlier, they saw us as the U.S. that ran out of Vietnam when it got too tough, that ran out of Lebanon when a few of our marines got killed, that ran out of Somalia when just 18 of our soldiers got killed. The U.S. with no stomach for a fight. The U.S. that had plenty of high-tech weapons and no courage. The U.S. that will fire off a few cruise missiles, but won't risk shedding precious blood. Listen to Osama Bin Laden’s rants. That's exactly how he saw us, and there's no denying it.

As I said, a nations's credibility is real and important, and consequences flow from it, or the lack of it. Lives really can be lost or saved because of it, whether you recognize that fact or not. It's possible that if our reputation had not been one of weakness, the atrocity of 9/11/01 would not have taken place because Al Quaeda might have felt it was too risky to attack us.

This would be the point where someone with a strong sense of morality would take me to task for 'supporting' Saddam, but frankly, I don't give a shit. Killing 6-10,000 people wasn't going to ressurect the thousands of those already gone at that butcher's hands (all of them killed under the uncaring or conniving watch of the rest of the world),

No, it would merely prevent thousands of others from sharing the same fate, but as I said earlier, I guess they don't count.

and I'm not impressed by recent previous efforts (Afghanistan for one) or the recent history of the United States in the matter of 'nation-building' whatsoever. What's worse, the US went precisely the wrong way about it to ensure that it could get international support after the fact. Talk about a way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Well see how it goes eventually. Right now it is much too soon to tell.

Define *really* cooperating? What would satisfy you? In case you don't remember, the Iraqis were meant to show that they had destroyed all their B and C stockpiles. How exactly do you meet that standard of proof?

How about not obstructing the inspectors to the point where they could no longer do their jobs at all, and left the country. So what if it was Butler who ordered them out? The Iraqis could acheive the same end of getting them out just by being obstructionist, and frustrating them into giving up, and not look as bad because the inspectors would go on their own. It's not technically kciking them out, but it amounts to the same thing. You can't convince me that's not exactly what the Iraqis intended. That's not cooperating.

Nope, there's what you can prove, and there's assumptions that may or may not be the case, irrespective of your gut feeling.

No, there's what you know. There are things you see going on, and abslutely no doubt remains, but you can't get enough to take to court. Whe you see a couple of guys standing out on a street corner, and cars are constantly stopping there, it's not just an assumption that they're dealing drugs. They're dealing drugs. But you can never catch them with the stuff on them because they have lookouts and runners, and they see those nice shiny blue and white police cars coming ahead of time. So you never have enough to take to court. They're still dealing drugs.

Similarly, there may be evidence you have, but it's classified, and you can't risk making it public, because it would allow the enemy to pinpoint the source it came from, and that source it too valuable to lose. That's just one scenario I can think of in a case like this.

Now you're down to completely ignoring what I said and just repeating yourself. Have fun with the dogma, don't bother to see if an answer might actually be in what I wrote there.

That's because it's not. I want to hear a good, credible explanation how, for 12 years the Iraqis can violate no less than 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and remain in material breach of disarmament obligations, and still be "cooperating". You haven't given me one.

The search is still ongoing.

"Iraq is the size of California" only flies for so long.

Axis Kast answered that for me.

I never cared one way or the other that Iraq had the laughably misnamed 'WMD'. I was ahppy to see the inspectors there for as long as that regime existed- because I never assumed WMD to be there in the first place. I waited for the evidence.

Which never would have been forthcoming, since the inspectors' success was contingent upon volunary cooperation from Saddam's regime, which they weren't getting.

Furthermore, if I was one of *those* people, I'd point out that the inspection effort was still growing when war was declared, and you have totally occupied the place now for some months.

Again, Axis Kast answered that one.

No, I called you on your error that the Iraqis kicked the inspectors out. The US placed spies and sabotaged the process- and then you have the gall to claim that it's ok to turn around and use that as an excuse for war? Who's spin machine is in overdrive? Hell, let's just call the Reichstag fire legitimate while we're at it!

If the Iraqis unconvered spies, they still don't get to stop cooperating. That's the price of losing a war. As Brennus the Gaul said to the Romans in 395BC “Vae Victis!” They can protest in the security council, and take the matter to the court of world opinion. Maybe that would get them a satisfactory result, and maybe not - though there are plenty of nations opposed to the US in the UN who would have helped them apply diplomatic pressure. But they don't get to defy their obligations under the cease fire.

No, you're a bullshit artist. The inspectors used their surveillance techniques specifically to monitor compliance in accordance with their mandate to disarm Iraq, which is SUPPOSEDLY what this war was all about. Then you say it's ok to pervert their mandate to spy on the Iraqi government, not part of it's mandate, and try and dress it up as legitimate? Goebbels would be taking notes right now if he could hear this.

Oh come off it. I am talking about the way international politics is played in the real world. Grow up little boy. It is simply unrealistic to expect the US or any other nation not to seek to gather intelligence on an untrustworthy and tyrannical ruler such as Saddam Hussein. If he’s even suspected of harboring or financing terrorists that may carry out attacks on American targets, then the US government has a positive duty to obtain the best possible intelligence it can.

Assuming what you're trying to prove- they were only 'obfuscating and obstructing' if you're already decided on the issue of what they were 'obfuscating and obstructing' about. Sorry.

12 years of violating UN resolutions and shooting at our planes does not make it necessary for us to assume anything. The Iraqis weren't cooperating.

Ah I see, because we all know blowjobs are more important than the invasion of another country. But keep your irrelevant sovereignty nitpick.

Nitpick my ass. Every citizen in this country, including the president is subject to US law; its authority over every citizen is absolute. The UN does not exercise anything like that level of authority over the United States.

Ah yes, the publically provided material to make the case for war is all bullshit, but you appeal to the unknowable instead.

Well since the publicly provided material was sufficiently compelling to sell the war to several other nations, I would hardly call it bullshit.

As for the unknowable, it may be unknowable to the likes of you and me. However, every government is privy to loads of information that is classified. There can be little doubt that there is a great deal of classified information on Iraq.

Me personally, none. But then again, you still have MI6 standing by claims that Saddam really was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

Without evidence.

Yes, I’m sure MI6 doesn’t have a shred of evidence to back up their claims. The Niger document was only a part of what they had.

That's some democracy you got there. They make rubbish claims in public, but in private I'm sure the information is really quite good.

In case you missed it, some of those claims came from the UN and say things like:

69. Argumentation Iraq employs in support of its claim includes the demand that the Commission prove to Iraq that it continues to hold prohibited weapons and associated capabilities. This argumentation, were it to be accepted, would reverse the onus of disclosure clearly placed upon Iraq by the Security Council and instead would require the Commission to make the full disclosure of proscribed items, which only Iraq can make.

70. The biological weapons area is a revealing example of these facts. For half of the eight-year period of the relationship between Iraq and the Special Commission, Iraq declared that it had no biological weapons programme. When that claim was no longer tenable, Iraq provided a series of disclosure statements all of which have been found by international experts, on multiple occasions, to be neither credible nor verifiable.

73. It must be recorded, however, that for this to be the case, a satisfactory resolution of the question of the chemical warfare agent VX needs to be achieved, because of its implications for both the chemical weapons and the missile files. This involves not just the question of VX weaponization, but also the more fundamental question of Iraq's record of VX production. Again, there can be no substitute for full disclosure by Iraq on this matter, a disclosure that has never been made.

Italics added.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/sres98-920.htm

That’s just a couple of lines from a single document, yet it indicates in no uncertain terms that the Iraqis were not cooperating.

Don't be an ass! He's the one claiming that Bush must be lying and there is no other explanation. If someone can point out a credible alternative explanation to refute that assertion, it is up to him, as the person making that claim, to support his assertion by showing that that credible alternative cannot be so.

I was referring to the Al-Qaeda/Iraq link claim. It is not up to anyone to prove that they are not connected, it's up to those who says they are to prove that they are.

I never asked him to prove the Iraq/Al Quaeda connection. Where are you getting this?

Applying how you arrest individuals to declaring war on millions of people, killing thousands of them and possibly inspiring a generation of increased hate for the goal of credibility is ill-advised, IMO.

Well, as you say, it’s your opinion – and one I don’t happen to share. We allow a certain extra amount of latitude in diplomacy, but when you get right down to it, you’re still dealing with people, so the same principles still apply. Come to that, when you deal with Saddam, you’re still dealing with a thug, so the same principles really apply.

[Perinquus]

Shit! Didn't mean to double post. Sorry about that.

[Iceberg]

Every electoral cycle, the old arguments for ditching the electoral college and electing the president by popular election comes up and, unfortunately, dies immediately after the election.

We have the technology to make a national popular election of the President feasible. Why we don't escapes me.

Loading......
Bullshit detected from inhabitant from high population state...

Oh yes. Minnesota and its mighty ten electoral votes is truly a force to be reckoned with in national electoral politics.

Shep, get a fucking brain.

[Iceberg]

Minnesota's influence in the elections would probably decrease slightly given a switch to direct popular election (5.0 million state population as of the last census, compared to about 25 million for New York and about 50 million for California), but it would hardly evaporate. What would happen is that marginal states like Montana and Alaska would stop having electoral influence disproportional to their miniscule populations.

BTW, California is currently electorally virtually irrelevant, despite having 1/5 the number of electoral votes needed to elect the president, because in any presidential election that doesn't involve George W. Bush and some faceless assclown, the election has already been decided before the polls close in CA.

[Vympel]

And it was bloody well too late by then. They stalled and obfuscated,

Only if you've already made up your mind.

and shot at U.S. planes for 12 years,

Heaven forbid they defend the very sovereignty that's affirmed in the resolution the US claimed justification from.

then at the last minute, when it became clear they were about to get hit, tried to save things by doing an about face. They should have been fully cooperative from the start, and they weren't, which was predictable with a man like Saddam in charge.

Hardly. Your version of events is the typical mythology that's arisen about Iraq for the past 12 years. What 'cooperation' would've satisfied you? Evidence of WMD which you're obviously convinced they had despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary?

They died so we could get Saddam out of power, which is hardly jack and shit. That statement is so stupid (not to mention trite) I'm struggling to hang on to my temper. And no power on earth has ever taken more care to keep collateral damage to a minimum than we just did. By your logic, the thousands of people who died in the liberation of Europe half a century ago died for jack and shit.

Ah yes, the inevitable trite comparison to WW2 rears its ugly head. What a high opinion you have of your self interested little jaunt into a region that despises you.

I just love it how people like you blame us for the deaths inflicted by our troops. Of course the fact that in the end we have almost certainly saved thousands more, even tens of thousands perhaps, who will not now end up in mass graves or go through Saddam's torture chambers means nothing.

I'm utterly unconvinced that any real effort will be made to give the Iraqi people a better life, just different overlords- as long as they follow orders, of course. Like previous scum the US has propped up or supported in the past. You may get your version of history from Ann Coulter, but I suffer no such delusions.

Sneer if you like, it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Credibility is a very real concept whether you recognize it or not. When your nation lacks it, bad things happen to you. For example, on September 30, 1985 four Soviet diplomats were kidnapped in Beirut, Lebanon by Islamic Liberation Organisation, which was thought to be a front for the Iranian backed Hezbollah. One of the Russians was killed but the other three were released unharmed after a relative of the terrorist group's leaders was kidnapped and killed by the Soviet KGB. The terrorists promptly released their Russian hostages, and wanted no part of kidnapping Russians after that. The knew the KGB would deal with them ruthlessly. This one death very likely saved more Russian and perhaps even Lebanese deaths further down the line.

So you're suggesting that the United States should emulate the ruthless tactics of an authoritarian state whoose existence was based on terror because of once incident where terrorists got cold feet?

Osama Bin Laden felt secure in attacking the U.S. because he believed we had gone soft. Saddam felt safe in defying the U.S. because he felt we had gone soft.

And every country is obliged to follow your orders now? Yes, Emperor. Sorry, but you can keep your imperial delusions, I'll only accept the legimitacy of the use of force where self defense is imperative.

As I said earlier, they saw us as the U.S. that ran out of Vietnam when it got too tough, that ran out of Lebanon when a few of our marines got killed, that ran out of Somalia when just 18 of our soldiers got killed. The U.S. with no stomach for a fight. The U.S. that had plenty of high-tech weapons and no courage. The U.S. that will fire off a few cruise missiles, but won't risk shedding precious blood. Listen to Osama Bin Laden’s rants. That's exactly how he saw us, and there's no denying it.

So attacking Iraq was the perfect placebo for such action eh? Funny, last I heard you had no evidence for showing that Al-Qaeda had anything to do with Iraq. If this was an argument about Afghanistan (you know, that shithole you've tossed to the wolves?), you might have a point.

As I said, a nations's credibility is real and important, and consequences flow from it, or the lack of it. Lives really can be lost or saved because of it, whether you recognize that fact or not. It's possible that if our reputation had not been one of weakness, the atrocity of 9/11/01 would not have taken place because Al Quaeda might have felt it was too risky to attack us.

Sure, so if you just threw your weight around and killed a few people every now and then to enforce your imperial edicts, you could guard against the potential future crimes of others through fear. I understand perfectly. Never mind that you're probably just the type of person to refuse to accept any responsibility for WHY the US is attacked. Let me guess: they just hate freedom, right? Does the word 'vicious cycle' mean anythign to you?

No, it would merely prevent thousands of others from sharing the same fate, but as I said earlier, I guess they don't count.

Not unless you have a guarantee that you're going to do more good than harm.

Well see how it goes eventually. Right now it is much too soon to tell.

We'll see.

How about not obstructing the inspectors to the point where they could no longer do their jobs at all, and left the country. So what if it was Butler who ordered them out?

Because they were exceeding their mandate and performing illegal espionage. Keep leaving that part out.

The Iraqis could acheive the same end of getting them out just by being obstructionist, and frustrating them into giving up, and not look as bad because the inspectors would go on their own. It's not technically kciking them out, but it amounts to the same thing. You can't convince me that's not exactly what the Iraqis intended. That's not cooperating.

Actually, it'd be more likely that was exactly what the US intended when it tried that moron stunt. The Iraqis had been cooperating up to 1998 (not without whining about it, obviously), and oh, I suppose it's just *coincidence* that they stop cooperating when they find out the US has seeded the team with spies eh?

Do you have ANY idea how many weapons the inspectors destroyed?

No, there's what you know.

No, there isn't. If you don't have evidence, you don't KNOW anything. The WMD scandal has proven that QUITE well.

Similarly, there may be evidence you have, but it's classified, and you can't risk making it public, because it would allow the enemy to pinpoint the source it came from, and that source it too valuable to lose. That's just one scenario I can think of in a case like this.

The war is over. Can you explain where this 'classified' intellignece is now? Your appeal to unknowable bullshit is lame.

That's because it's not. I want to hear a good, credible explanation how, for 12 years the Iraqis can violate no less than 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions, and remain in material breach of disarmament obligations,

Justify your claim of material breach, since UNMOVIC never made any such claim.

and still be "cooperating". You haven't given me one.

Your 17 security council resolutions are irrelevant if they do not regard disarmament, which is what the issue of cooperation is about.

Now then, do explain where your claim of material breach comes from? Because for the life of me, I don't recall where any such declaration was made.

Axis Kast answered that for me.

And he's yet to provide a satsifactory answer to my criticsms of his false analogies.

I
Which never would have been forthcoming, since the inspectors' success was contingent upon volunary cooperation from Saddam's regime, which they weren't getting.

Not in the opinion of the inspectors, sorry.

Again, Axis Kast answered that one.

No, he didn't. Blix, in every report, reiterated that the teams hadn't even grown to full size yet, whereas the US supposedly has thousands of people scouring the country and unfettered access to all sites.

If the Iraqis unconvered spies, they still don't get to stop cooperating.

Yes, they do. The inspectors had a clear mandate and the US abused it. Too bad.

That's the price of losing a war.

Funny, but where did you compel their surrender? Oh that's right, you didn't.

As Brennus the Gaul said to the Romans in 395BC “Vae Victis!” They can protest in the security council, and take the matter to the court of world opinion. Maybe that would get them a satisfactory result, and maybe not - though there are plenty of nations opposed to the US in the UN who would have helped them apply diplomatic pressure. But they don't get to defy their obligations under the cease fire.

Ah, an appeal to authority of some dead Gaul. Impressive.

Oh come off it. I am talking about the way international politics is played in the real world. Grow up little boy.

Translation: "I have no principles, and will merely smugly decalre 'that's the way things are' no matter how unethical, and then have the audacity to claim moral high ground".

It is simply unrealistic to expect the US or any other nation not to seek to gather intelligence on an untrustworthy and tyrannical ruler such as Saddam Hussein.

Shouldn't have done it through the inspectors. Sorry. You were the ones dumb enough to get caught.

If he’s even suspected of harboring or financing terrorists that may carry out attacks on American targets, then the US government has a positive duty to obtain the best possible intelligence it can.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the background of why the inspections stopped in 1998, not your delusions of pax americana.

12 years of violating UN resolutions and shooting at our planes does not make it necessary for us to assume anything. The Iraqis weren't cooperating.

They had every right to shoot at your planes- noone bought the no fly zone argument and even the US tacitly admitted it was bullshti because they never attempted to use it in their case for war. As for your '12 years of violating UN resolutions"- really- can the circular reasoning get any more blatant? I ask you how they weren't cooperating with disarmament (i.e. violating UN resolutions), you say they were violating UN resolutions (some of which are not even related to disarmament). That's not an answer, it's question begging. At no point was there any evidence that Iraq had rearmed. But keep on chanting "it's a big country", I'm sure it makes you sleep at night.

Nitpick my ass. Every citizen in this country, including the president is subject to US law; its authority over every citizen is absolute. The UN does not exercise anything like that level of authority over the United States.

Which is not the point. I don't care much for your obsession with America's imperial powers to do whatever it pleases. It's a matter of principle, and you've demonstrated your warped, tainted by petty American politics partisan sense of priorities well.

Well since the publicly provided material was sufficiently compelling to sell the war to several other nations I would hardly call it bullshit.

LOL! That's right, don't look at the evidence that's been laid out and what we know to be true, make an appeal to the non-existent authority of the paltry number of states that signed on to this exercise. How vicious the circular logic is these days! Does that mean you'll be arguing that because the US went to war, it mustn't have been bullshit?

As for the unknowable, it may be unknowable to the likes of you and me. However, every government is privy to loads of information that is classified. There can be little doubt that there is a great deal of classified information on Iraq.

I don't give a fuck if I don't see it for myself- the case against Iraq was made in public, and sources were provided- you know, democracy and freedom of information and all those other free concepts that seem to escape you the moment things get inconvenient.

Yes, I’m sure MI6 doesn’t have a shred of evidence to back up their claims. The Niger document was only a part of what they had.

So they say. So ... where's the rest of what they had?

That’s just a couple of lines from a single document, yet it indicates in no uncertain terms that the Iraqis were not cooperating

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/sres98-920.htm

You really know how to cherry pick your evidence and hope to God the other party doesn't have the sense to check the dates, huh? This was made just prior to the inspector's leaving, following Iraqi noncooperation after the spies were discovered, and was under the ambit of Richard Butler, the same patsy who agreed to violate his mandate in the first place and pull his inspectors out without even asking the Security Council.

I never asked him to prove the Iraq/Al Quaeda connection. Where are you getting this?

Wrong context. Never mind.

Well, as you say, it’s your opinion – and one I don’t happen to share. We allow a certain extra amount of latitude in diplomacy, but when you get right down to it, you’re still dealing with people, so the same principles still apply. Come to that, when you deal with Saddam, you’re still dealing with a thug, so the same principles really apply.

Except that your actions do not apply to just one man, they apply to millions of people as well.

[BoredShirtless]

then at the last minute, when it became clear they were about to get hit, tried to save things by doing an about face. They should have been fully cooperative from the start, and they weren't, which was predictable with a man like Saddam in charge.

Hardly. Your version of events is the typical mythology that's arisen about Iraq for the past 12 years. What 'cooperation' would've satisfied you? Evidence of WMD which you're obviously convinced they had despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary?

Perinquus's definition of "cooperation" is IMMEDIATE acceptance. This expectation doesn't belong in international diplomacy, especially in dealing with an issue with 12 years of events and data. EVERY move made MUST be analysed very carefully to ensure there is no confusion or open issues. Which takes time.

[SirNitram]

You know, my tolerance for Bush apologists has kinda faded, so I'm going to ask those apologists here to explain something to me. Since I come from a well balanced, non-American, family, it makes no sense.

You claim Clinton is 'immoral' because he got blown in the Oval Office and lied about it.

You claim Bush's lies during the State Of The Union are not as bad, because they weren't under oath.

So here's my question.

WHAT SORT OF INHUMAN, RETARDED, IMMORAL PEICE OF SHIT THINKS THAT A LIE THAT DIRECTLY LEADS TO PEOPLE DYING IS SOMEHOW EQUAL TO A LIE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN INTERN UNDER THE DESK DURING BUBBA'S STATE OF THE UNION?!?!?!?!

[Bob McDob]

Random fact: I believe an informal poll conducted (I think it was the History Channel or something) had a slim majority agree that it was permissable for a head of state to lie in the interests of national security. Think it was complementing a story on Watergate.

[RedImperator]

Minnesota's influence in the elections would probably decrease slightly given a switch to direct popular election (5.0 million state population as of the last census, compared to about 25 million for New York and about 50 million for California), but it would hardly evaporate. What would happen is that marginal states like Montana and Alaska would stop having electoral influence disproportional to their miniscule populations.

And that's where the problem lies. You can't just consider population when you look at how much influence a state has in national politics. Because the system is federalist, the states are sovereign entities in their own right and have the right to at least a SOMEWHAT equal voice on the national stage. That's why each state only gets two senators, even though by the logic of those bitching and moaning about the electoral college, the number of senators a state recieves should also be proportional to population. The Electoral College allows both the people and the states to have a voice in how the President is elected. It doesn't give the small states an EQUAL voice in the election, because, as you say, California alone has 1/5 of the votes required to elect the President, but it does mean that California won't have 62 times the importance of Wyoming.

As a practical matter, by the way, the electoral college helps ensure that the people in "flyover country" feel their voice is heard. This is not a trivial matter. The last time a large, politically conservative, geographically contiguous area felt it was being excluded from national politics, the was a civil war. I'm not saying that would happen again, but it's certainly not a great idea to increase inter-regional resenment.

The electoral college could stand to be improved. Dividing the votes by congressional district, instead allowing the winner of a state to get all the electoral votes, would eliminate situations such as Pennsylvania's, where Philadelphia, with a notoriously corrupt 1-party city government, can swing the entire state. The indivudual states could change this without a Constitutional amendment (three states, IIRC, already do this).

[Axis Kast]

With 1945 technology. Hidden stockpiles of what, where, and most importantly, what was invested in the search? The credibility of a US administration? I think not. That Bush and Rumsfeld have already abandoned their previous claims and resorted to claiming that Iraq had a 'program' should tell you something.

Reserves of equipment, oil, and other supplies considered vital to a “final stand” in Berlin or other points of high value throughout Germany.

And don’t give me that, “But we have satellites now!” bullshit. Those “eyes in the sky” aren’t very useful when we start talking about installations either enclosed or underground.

The fact that the credibility of the Oval Office is riding on the discovery of WMD does not change the reality of the search. Allied forces combed Germany after the war, seeking uranium and other items (such as “superweapons”) wherever it might be found. Their investigation was at first equally as frantic.

And you bring up this useless false analogy for the umpteenth time, and I knock it down for the umpteenth time: the Soviet Union has not 'liberated' South Africa, nor was there any UN sanctioned inspections regime on South Africa.

In fact, out of curiosity more than anything else I'd like to see a source for this favorite claim of yours.

Our “liberation” of Iraq doesn’t equate to omnipotence. American forces occupy mere fractions of the country.

The quality of the UN inspections remains dubious considering that they searched only a limited number of sites.

In fact, out of curiosity more than anything else I'd like to see a source for this favorite claim of yours.

From FAS.org:

“Beginning in 1975 two test shafts over 250 meters deep for conducting nuclear tests were drilled at the Vastrap military base in the Kalahari Desert. A Soviet surveillance satellite detected these test preparationss in August 1977, and the Soviets notified the US of their discovery. South Africa was forced to cancel the tests in the face of diplomatic pressure from America, the Soviet Union, and France.”

During this time there was an ongoing struggle in the country of Angola between Soviet proxies and the South African government. Allies of Moscow – from the Angolans themselves to organizations such as the ANC – were constantly at work across South Africa, feeding information to their handlers. It is also quite likely that the Soviets themselves devoted human intelligence resources to the region. This in addition to the fact that Soviet satellites or observers would have been covering military movements by the SADF on a regular basis in order to assist Cuban troops in the field.

Uh ... from his post? Like many others (most of whom who don't know all the facts but anyway) he pointed to the Iraqis 'kicking out' inspectors in 1998 as justification for his view, and when I pointed out the reason why, he tried to justify the corruption of UNSCOM's mandate. That implicitly told me what his point of view was.

No, I want a reference to the “spies.”

More on the Blix issue once I dig up some relevant sources.

[Iceberg]

The electoral college could stand to be improved. Dividing the votes by congressional district, instead allowing the winner of a state to get all the electoral votes, would eliminate situations such as Pennsylvania's, where Philadelphia, with a notoriously corrupt 1-party city government, can swing the entire state. The indivudual states could change this without a Constitutional amendment (three states, IIRC, already do this).

The only problem with this is that it would give an even greater incentive for gerrymandering than already exists.

[Iceberg]

The fact that the credibility of the Oval Office is riding on the discovery of WMD does not change the reality of the search. Allied forces combed Germany after the war, seeking uranium and other items (such as “superweapons”) wherever it might be found. Their investigation was at first equally as frantic.

We've searched over half the country and come up empty so far - including all of the most likely ammo dumps. According to the Army, every ammo dump south of Baghdad has been searched, with not so much as a single microbe showing up.

[Axis Kast]

We've searched over half the country and come up empty so far - including all of the most likely ammo dumps. According to the Army, every ammo dump south of Baghdad has been searched, with not so much as a single microbe showing up.

Wasn't it Jegs that brought the argument that only a few hundred sites had yet been searched - and that those were mostly pre-arrainged locations?

We haven't searched "half the country." We've searched selected installations. It's not impossible Saddam would not have kept anything in ammo dumps, either, considering that he didn't trust regular troops with WMD even during the best of times.

[Iceberg]

We've searched over half the country and come up empty so far - including all of the most likely ammo dumps. According to the Army, every ammo dump south of Baghdad has been searched, with not so much as a single microbe showing up.

Wasn't it Jegs that brought the argument that only a few hundred sites had yet been searched - and that those were mostly pre-arrainged locations?

We haven't searched "half the country." We've searched selected installations. It's not impossible Saddam would not have kept anything in ammo dumps, either, considering that he didn't trust regular troops with WMD even during the best of times.

CBWs are NOT something you can just stick in a hole in the ground. They need specially prepared facilities to keep them from getting out and causing serious harm to the environment around them (which would give away their location like a red flag, in addition to wasting valuable chem-bio agents). The chances that CBWs are going to be found away from Iraqi military installations and ammo dumps are pretty limited.

[Axis Kast]

CBWs are NOT something you can just stick in a hole in the ground. They need specially prepared facilities to keep them from getting out and causing serious harm to the environment around them (which would give away their location like a red flag, in addition to wasting valuable chem-bio agents). The chances that CBWs are going to be found away from Iraqi military installations and ammo dumps are pretty limited.

That's a blanket assessment. It's not fact that all CBWs require that kind of care and handling. Some are quite survivable.

[RedImperator]

The electoral college could stand to be improved. Dividing the votes by congressional district, instead allowing the winner of a state to get all the electoral votes, would eliminate situations such as Pennsylvania's, where Philadelphia, with a notoriously corrupt 1-party city government, can swing the entire state. The indivudual states could change this without a Constitutional amendment (three states, IIRC, already do this).

The only problem with this is that it would give an even greater incentive for gerrymandering than already exists.

That argument seems to assume they're not already gerrymandering as much as they can. If you rig a district so it will always elect a Republican congressman, it's going to always vote for a Republican presidential candidate too, and vice versa.

[Iceberg]

The Twin Cities are already pretty heavily gerrymandered - not that it makes a difference, really, since five of the six congressmen from the Twin Cities are DFLers.