Axis Kast wrote:
Hussein’s links to terrorism – both Palestinian and otherwise – are hardly the only basis on which I support a war against Iraq.
Indeed, you've already displayed yourself as a moral bankrupt by declaring that 'might makes right'- you are a common, unprincipled bully.
We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is making good use of agents trained by Iraq.
NO, it fucking didn't. I read what you posted, and there is nothing that makes any connection. You are a liar.
The BBC article I posted earlier gave proof of that.
Post the exact place where it proves it, goddamit.
And while you’re willing to dismiss that as one man among a sea of thousands, I am not as ready to do so. Nor, thankfully, is my President.
That one man in thousands was trained in Afghanistan by Al-Qaeda. Please point out where it says he has anything to do with Iraq, dumbass.
If the Ba’ath cannot police their own borders to prevent infiltration by al-Qaeda or is in a position to be prevented from disseminating resources that ultimately wind up in the hands of Osama Bin Laden’s orchestrates of violence, it’s yet another argument against Saddam.
If the Bush administration cannot police their own borders to prevent infiltration by al-Qaeda or is in position to be prevented from disseminating resources that ultimately wind up in the hands of OBL orchestrates of violence, it's yet another argument against Bush.
You're a dumbass.
The CIA has argued against (1) Hussein’s possession of nuclear weaponry and (2) Hussein’s direct ties to al-Qaeda, not Iraq’s possession of chemicals and biologicals or the potential for a “trickle-down” effect among terrorist groups active in the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
Provide your source for making this claim that they restrict their analysis to 'direct' ties, for fuck's sake.
I think not.
Got a basis for that? Two words: Iran 1950s. Concession Accepted. And I can bring up plenty more 'regime changes' supported by the US where a democracy was not the result.
Try a new government put in place by popular vote. Will there be ties to the White House? Of course. Is that better than Saddam Hussein however? Expotentially so. Remember that this new government will fall under the aegis of the United Nations – whom I guarantee will “hop on the train” once their opposition to war is no longer valid.
Fall under the aegis of the UN? Not accoridng to the signatories for the 'New American Century'- all current members of the Bush administration, or tied to it intimately. Check your damn facts.
That’s equally as great a jump as you claim I take in suggesting that Hussein gives support to al-Qaeda on an indirect basis.
It's not a controversial fact that Osama Bin Laden was incensed by infidel troops on holy land. Your failure to even know this is not my problem.
Will the attack on Iraq spur more terrorism? Probably – but it would have come anyway. Will it prove nearly as effective as that of September 11th? Unlikely. Is the blow we deal to Saddam probably going to hurt al-Qaeda more than any kind of “retaliation” they can mount against us? Absolutely.
Forgetting of course all the bitter recruits with dead relatives and friends that will flock to their cause
My point is that the region won’t tumble into chaos. You’ve not proved otherwise.
No, everything will just be fine and dandy, just like in Afghanistan right now- oh wait a minute ....
When did I say that Yemen possessed nuclear weapons? I’m arguing that North Korea does.
At that point, we were talking about Iraq, not North Korea.
So Iraq has produced an infrastructure capable of developing long-range missiles prohibited by the United Nations Security Council and acknowledged to be a threat to Iraq’s neighbors – whom he has directed such weapons upon in the past -, but this “means nothing” to you?
Unless you want Iraq to revert to the Stone Age, it is not extremely hard to produce a long-range missile. Whether they have the intent or will to do so is another matter entirely.
According to the BBC, one terrorist with ties to both Iraq and al-Qaeda is already serving a twenty-seven year prison sentence in Israel.
You are a fucking liar. Again, point to where in that article where the ties to both Iraq and Al-Qaeda are shown, for fuck's sake. Next of Kin has repeatedly pointed that there is nothing in the article that says anything of the sort.
Common sense is acknowledging the danger that drop canisters might be fitted to the UAVs in place of cameras or electronic monitoring systems
Dumbass. The sensor package mount is in the nose of the aircraft. Where all sensor packages for UAVs go.
After all, Hussein’s command-and-control capabilities are minimal at best. Any half-decent tactician is able to see that he can do far more with a flying bomb than with a camera.
Ever heard of situational awarenss and reconaissance? Obviously not.
No, but he might over-fly our troops or those of the United Kingdom.
Ah, the broken record repeats itself. I ask again- what. has. he. got. to. gain?
The point is that this is a violation.[/quote]
Not only has it not been shown to be a violation, but even if it was, it wouldn't justify any war- unless you hang your hat on the 'moral authority' of the United Nations (not that such a thing exists). And, if you want to get legalistic, 1441 says nothing about war.
He’s taking steps to evade us. What makes you think those steps won’t get larger over time?
More speculation eh?
Why wouldn’t Hussein use his weapons? He’s made such gambles before during the Gulf War.
Not in the 91 Gulf War. Nothing like using what might happen in a war, as a reason to go to war. Are you always this thick?
He’s fairly well-convinced that an attack on Israel might gain him the support of the Arab world. Baghdad is also confident of European support. He’s becoming – if anything – emboldened.
Empty bullshit devoid of evidence- no surprise. Explain why he did not use WMD on Israel in 1991.
The United States won’t. It has a mounting for reconnaissance equipment? You mean just like the ones for canisters full of chemicals? Shock horror, who woulda’ thought, eh?
You are a fucking moron. Do you know how big a camera is compared to 'canisters full of chemicals'?
I believe my Department of State
That's your problem, I'm not the one going in front of the United Nations with plagiarized term papers.
far more than I believe your predications of Hussein’s rational behavior or the likelihood of the success for the inspectorate.
That's because you're an idiot jingoist.
Again, the man is convinced he is leaving power.
Have lunch with him the other day, did you? If you were any more full of shit ...
He’s also now encouraged by European opposition to the United States and rising Arab hatred for Israel.
Yes, this makes him using WMD on enemy troops without being attacked all the more likely! You are a fucking idiot.
He might very well provide indirect support to HAMAS and Hizbollah, assuming it won’t be traced back to an Iraqi source.
And you might wake up and realize you've got your head up your ass and no evidence or even well-reasoned speculation- but I doubt it.
The program was. That’s not a good sign. If it’s as easy as finding “a truck with rails,” then why has this effort petered out without so much as a failed prototype?
I'm tired of talking to a fucking brick wall. The truck with rails is the system it's mounted on. The rocket is the complicated part.
I’m so glad you’re willing to take these risks with the security of my nation.
Sorry if I don't have your grand delusions, jingoist.
Embaressed themselves enough? Like insisting the only reason that Hussein wants UAVs is for “reconnaissance?”
Considering that's what UAVs are used for, and any attempt to use them for anything else would be fucking moronic considering that it's an indigenous Iraqi design not seen anywhere else, the only person embarassing himself is you, you halfwit.
The inspectors have also acknowledged a dangerous potential for several of the recently-discovered weapons (all of which were prohibited anyway) to be deployed or refashioned as weaponry. You need to understand that speculation is a driving factor behind the maintenance of and preparation for security.
Weapons can be deployed as weaponry? Wow- who woulda thought.
As for speculation- it is based on reason- not insane ramblings and mumbling incoherently about 'proof' in BBC articles that noone can see but you.
MiG-29s, T-80UMs, and BMP-3 IFVs are a bit more difficult to smuggle across borders than a handful of rocket tubes and a dozen or so technical advisors. Iraq’s certainly got enough oil money to support a crash program to build rocket-artillery even if it hasn’t begun to import squadrons of Russian aircraft.
Idiot. Read what I wrote again. Did you see the 1991 part?
Illicit spare parts that help maintain and ensure the combat deployment of Hussein’s combat aircraft are fairly damning. Hell, the Yugoslavs admitted last October that they were still funneling Hussein munitions if not small arms as well. You’re going to pass this over?
Shifting the goal posts again? STAY ON THE FUCKING TOPIC. You just claimed illicit spare parts from third parties is the same as recieving rocket technology from the industry leaders. I grow tired of your fucking games.
Containment of that sort only works when the country has got an infrastructure and population to defend or about which the government must constantly worry.
Iraq doesn't fit into this category? Is it some sort of special fantasy nation?
And the Soviets still proliferated.
They did? Which terrorists did they give WMD to?
The possibility of the Iraqi government being able to pass off knowledge, funding, or technical assistance is substantial. Hell, none of the compromise resolutions even broached the matter of their ties to HAMAS and Hizbollah.
Maybe this is because Israel isn't exactly a saint either and they're reaping what they sowed- oh wait, lemme use your phrase- are you going to let their violations pass? Course you are.
More to come …
Well I can't take much more of this bullshit goal post shifting and non-evidence.
Well, to the point:
