Our World-Historical Gamble.

[Vympel]

The ties between Iraq and Al-Quaida are uncertain at best, so that's not the reason.

That's an exaggeration- the ties are not so much 'uncertain' as 'non-existent'. However, I'd also think it isn't the reason considering that the imperialist fringe lunatics who have the ear of the President right now have been lobbying for America to bring Iraq to heel and then embark on a grand program of empire-building for about a decade.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

That's an exaggeration- the ties are not so much 'uncertain' as 'non-existent'. However, I'd also think it isn't the reason considering that the imperialist fringe lunatics who have the ear of the President right now have been lobbying for America to bring Iraq to heel and then embark on a grand program of empire-building for about a decade.

There are known ties. Indeed, the ties - members of Al-Qaeda receiving medical treatment in Baghdad, establishment of facilities in northern Iraq (Not all of the no-fly zone regions are outside of Saddam's control, and he's trying to bring them back under his control - Also, why would an opponent be allowed treatment in a Baghdad hospital?) - are more than sufficient to demand the turning over those persons, and if that is not done, present Saddam with an ultimatum and then declare war on those grounds only, at least under old customary international law (which will probably be operating under after the Azores Conference).

This is international politics, Vympel. There are no certainties here, no accuracies, absolutely no ability to predict anything near to perfect. War, Economics, Politics - These supreme fields of State interaction consist of so many forces acting on each other and so many vast uncertainties that a combination of prediction, scraps of information from many random sources, and sheer gut instinct are all required to navigate them. No singular theory allows success in any of them, especially due to the influence of the human factor which can easily destroy any attempt to lock them into set theory.

Trying to analyze them like you do a field of the physical sciences is total and utter lunacy. Demanding a high standard of evidence is impossible. This is a field in which decisions which decide the fate of tens of thousands of people - or entire nations - are still made on the word of a couple of informants, a solid report from a consulate, or when the issue conflicts, the gut instinct of the leader.

To function conservatively in these realms is always to assume the worst case scenario. We've got some intercepted phone messages, we've got lots of stuff from defectors and informers, and we've got satellite data, which can be interpeted in numerous ways.

And there's a country the size of California down there, where since Osirak he could be easily working on underground facilities for reactors or whatnot.

Sure - you know the informers will be exagerrating things. You consider that. You also consider Iraq's purchases of various material, what it's been going to. You look at the satellite photos and the interpetations. You try to figure out Saddam's behaviour, maybe you get far maybe you don't. You consider the time factor with what he's trying to develop in how long you can think about this. And ultimately you can't get an exact answer. There is always an improbability. Always. Nobody. Nobody. Nobody. And I mean nobody has removed improbability from any calculation in these fields.

And you're the leader of a country, responsible for the fate of hundreds of millions of people. That weight is on your shoulders when you make the call. Do you want to be responsible for the deaths of any of them? The probably exists, and erring to the side of caution in these fields is not considering something false until it appears before your face - It's assuming it's there when you receive word that it potentially might be there. Being bold is assuming it might not be there. So of course you don't take the risk, you can't take the risk: So you go in.

[Andrew J.]

This is international politics, Vympel. There are no certainties here, no accuracies, absolutely no ability to predict anything near to perfect. War, Economics, Politics - These supreme fields of State interaction consist of so many forces acting on each other and so many vast uncertainties that a combination of prediction, scraps of information from many random sources, and sheer gut instinct are all required to navigate them. No singular theory allows success in any of them, especially due to the influence of the human factor which can easily destroy any attempt to lock them into set theory.

I usually find Murphy's Law to be sufficiently accurate when it comes to predicting International Politics.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I usually find Murphy's Law to be sufficiently accurate when it comes to predicting International Politics.

No, it isn't. Sometimes everything really does go perfectly. Of course, you don't know that it will. So you have to assume Murphy's Law.

[RedImperator]

I usually find Murphy's Law to be sufficiently accurate when it comes to predicting International Politics.

No, it isn't. Sometimes everything really does go perfectly. Of course, you don't know that it will. So you have to assume Murphy's Law.

One of the corollaries to Murphy's Law is that Murphy's Law itself will fail if it's treated as an absolute ("If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will").

[Dahak]

There are known ties. Indeed, the ties - members of Al-Qaeda receiving medical treatment in Baghdad, establishment of facilities in northern Iraq (Not all of the no-fly zone regions are outside of Saddam's control, and he's trying to bring them back under his control - Also, why would an opponent be allowed treatment in a Baghdad hospital?) - are more than sufficient to demand the turning over those persons, and if that is not done, present Saddam with an ultimatum and then declare war on those grounds only, at least under old customary international law (which will probably be operating under after the Azores Conference).

The USA is trying so hard to make connections were there are none.
ALmost every major intelligence service said it, the British even leaked it through to the press.
Only in Bush's demented world view there are ties.

And about those camps in Northern Iraq, that one in the no-fly zone. The USA could've bombed them any day they wanted... But having them exist is soooo nice a s"proof".

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The USA is trying so hard to make connections were there are none.
ALmost every major intelligence service said it, the British even leaked it through to the press.

Those intelligence services - and remember that every country has multiple intelligence services and you may only be hearing the dissenting voices - are still oriented towards Cold War threat types and can easily be wrong in their analysis of a threat of this type.

And about those camps in Northern Iraq, that one in the no-fly zone. The USA could've bombed them any day they wanted... But having them exist is soooo nice a s"proof".

There are limits to what we can bomb in the no-fly zones under the current ROE.

[Dahak]

The USA is trying so hard to make connections were there are none.
ALmost every major intelligence service said it, the British even leaked it through to the press.

Those intelligence services - and remember that every country has multiple intelligence services and you may only be hearing the dissenting voices - are still oriented towards Cold War threat types and can easily be wrong in their analysis of a threat of this type.

Well, I really doubt that. For one, the Cold War didn't end yesterday, you know?
And the British intelligence service had/have the IRA to hone their abilities, and we Germans had the nice, happily terroristic RAF. The Al-Qaeda is nothing new compared to that.

And about those camps in Northern Iraq, that one in the no-fly zone. The USA could've bombed them any day they wanted... But having them exist is soooo nice a s"proof".

There are limits to what we can bomb in the no-fly zones under the current ROE.

Oh yes
When did International Law and ROE did stop the USA before?
Face it, if they wanted, they'd bomb it and give a rat's ass about ROEs.

[RogueIce]

Does that mean you think we should declare war on Alabama?

Yes, and Georgia too. We need more room for Disney World II.

[Axis Kast]

Pre-emptive war precedents: Hitler 1939; Japan 1941. That's sort of why it's considered illegal today.

It’s hardly illegal – merely unpopular in this instance. Where was the outcry over Grenada in 1983 or Panama City in 1989? In this case, we’re talking about a man with chemical and biological agents whose clear agenda involves supporting violence against American allies. Yet it’s advocated that we wait for this man to kill hundreds of thousands of Israelis, Turks, or others before we topple his régime?

In a word, bullshit. You should be careful of endorsing an argument which endorses blanket aggression. Hitler claimed the same right in 1939.

Careful? Not necessarily. Preemption is an option open only to the United States at his point in time. And as you’ve already acknowledged, the precedent has already been established. There is extremely minimal danger of any party copying our move at the present time. Down the road? You’ll probably face similar threats, but that also holds true even if Washington doesn’t make a move here and now.

Military preemption has no future after Iraq. Syria, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and other financiers of terror on a State level are all best handled by economic, diplomatic, or other forms of persuasion.

Yes, World War II. Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Both triggered war as a result and threatened or destroyed international order.

And most recently – not to mention successfully – in Grenada and Panama.

And that means abandoning Israel to its fate? Yet another Strawman on your part.

A “Strawman?”

From my point of view, backing down now would be abandoning Israel to suffer attack, yes.

And Iraq has conducted how many invasions since being pushed out of Kuwait twelve years ago? Zero? Thought so.

We’re talking about proliferation, not conventional invasion. I remind you that they’ve continued to fund terrorism and import prohibited equipment.

Oh good Cthulhu, not the aluminum tubes lie again. That's been thoroughly discredited as it's been pointed out how the aluminum is not of sufficent grade to be useful in uranium centrifuges and could only be made so at considerable expense and effort —far more so than simply attempting to seek a back-channel for the import of said items.

Again, where are the prototypes and test beds after twenty years of development? Why import the tubes – at considerable risk - only to stockpile them later?

Based on that very poor video of a fighter jet which may have been dumping its fuel prior to a gears-up landing.

Based on Hans Blix’ testimony before the United Nations.

So, if the evidence doesn't exist or can't be found, we merely assume it does and charge ahead absent an actual act of war on the part of Iraq.

Again, this is a game of educated assumption. Hussein is clearly in possession of chemical and biological agents. He possesses unmanned aerial drones capable of dispersing chemicals. He’s got aluminum rods that could potentially end up as part of a nuclear infrastructure. He funds organizations agitating violently in favor of the destruction of the State of Israel. The man developed a prohibited infrastructure to test prohibited missiles.

Four times, CIA director George Tenet has said that no evidence of an Iraq/Al-Qaeda link exists. The problem of Hamas and Abu-Nidal has been combatted through standard anti-terrorism measures long before the so-called War on Terrorism was promulgated. Unfortunately, it is not possible to catch every plot; neither can terrorism be stamped out by brute military force. Intelligence and counter-terrorism operations are what is needed to fight an amorphous security threat of this nature.

We need to cut off the support they receive. HAMAS, Abu-Nidal, and others receive a modicum of support that can be stamped out in large part via régime-change in Iraq.

Tenet is correct. No direct link exists. But there remains the potential for al-Qaeda to glean from HAMAS and Hizbollah members trained in Iraq or using Iraqi resources. Again, if we can put Saddam out of power – mostly on other counts, with this as a sort of added bonus -, why not?

Funny, that's what Hitler said.

You seem to imply that only the United States is guilty of taking this position. It’s reality. Look at French arms sales. Look at the history of the entire world. Law only exists because we stuff it down somebody’s throat. That is not in all cases bad.

Too bad George Tenet says you're wrong about Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Beyond that, weapons programmes in and of themselves are not sufficent reason to launch a war. Or will you be advocating an invasion of North Korea anytime soon?

I would be if not for the fact that taking on Iraq is far easier and potentially less bloody than taking on Kim Jong-Il.

The difference is that active threat to French and foreign nationals posed by revolutionary chaos in Cote D'Ivorie exists, that France's insertion of 2500 troops is in response to a somewhat strained interpretation of an agreement between the two countries signed in 1962 to provide military assistance in the event of invasion or attack by an outside power, and that said action has the backing of an agreement by ECOWAS and UN authourisation. That is not unilateral action no matter how much you wish to believe otherwise. Which even further undermines your argument.

Yes. I recently discovered this myself. However …

We signed a cease-fire, not an active peace with Hussein.

His support technically results in the death of American citizens. He is in clear connection with terrorist networks that have recently killed our people and threatened our allies.

And UN authorization is only available for France because nobody else cares about Cote D’Ivoire.

Now I hope that last part of your statement was sarcasm. The last few times anybody took on a stance like that, we wound up with things such as the United States' protracted campaign against the American aboriginals (the Native Americans,) as well as World War 1 and World War 2. As it is, Hussein poses no real threat to the United States. Yes, he's a psychotic dictator who gasses his own people and makes dissenters vanish from their homes at night, but he can't really threaten the United States. He can only threaten American interests in the area (Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields, and Israel.)

Threats to American interests must be dealt with. His potential to harm our friends is a potential for war on his terms. I’m not willing to wait until Israelis die and we’re forced to go in on Saddam’s timetable.

Some would say he funnels money to Al-Quaeda. That's probably true, but Al-Quaeda gets a lot of funding from people living in a lot of other Arab nations, such as the United States' stalwart ally Saudi Arabia. Do you propose that we invade that country too? And while we're at it, we can invade Syria and Egypt and Jordan and any other country with ties to terrorism. Hell, let's just turn the entire region into one gigantic American hegemony (Not that that would necessarily be such a bad idea, except the United States would probably hand it all over to Israel, and they're just as much a bunch of violent fundamentalist assholes as their neighbors.) It'd be like the old British empire all over again.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are far less easily dealt with than Iraq. It’s not good strategy to tackle the larger threats while the smaller one grows.

I don’t see why stamping out Hussein must suddenly become a wider crusade. That’s poor criticism of my position at best. All other threats can be handled without military effort.

As for imperialism? French and Russian ties are as bad. At least if we establish a new government in Iraq we can put the Saudis in a tighter spot and begin pulling out of Riyadh’s territory. And I’m fully confident that as you suggested, the United Nations will hop on board once Saddam is “out” to help float a truly democratic boat post-war.

He's a threat to his region, but he's no direct threat to the United States. That is why I support war, but I do not believe the United States is justified in going in alone. The only place the United States has any business unilaterally attacking right now is North Korea. Like Iraq, they also have a psychotic dictatorship. Like Iraq, North Korea could conceivably menace American interests (South Korea and Japan.) However, North Korea is a direct threat to the United States. They have nukes, and they talk like they're itching to set one off on the American west coast. Iraq, however, is an international problem. It should be solved with joint action. It shouldn't be used as Shrub's own Klintonesque 'Wag The Dog' scenario.

North Korea is perhaps a greater international problem as a result of the immediate proximity of Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan. We can’t invade without Seoul’s complicity, and all they’re out for is our embarrassment. The best policy is the current one: silent containment.

Iraq is where we need little or no foreign support. This is a contest of whether or not we can be bound by international self-interest. Back down now and we open the door for nascent dictatorships worldwide to evade American ire by allying themselves to Europe’s anti-war movements or capitalize off the anti-American sentiment of political leaders therein who want nothing more than to stifle our projection of power and influence across the globe. We also embolden Hussein to privately support an attack Israel under the assumption that Europe will shield him again from American action even if shadowy connections are found.

[Vympel]

There are known ties. Indeed, the ties - members of Al-Qaeda receiving medical treatment in Baghdad,establishment of facilities in northern Iraq (Not all of the no-fly zone regions are outside of Saddam's control, and he's trying to bring them back under his control - Also, why would an opponent be allowed treatment in a Baghdad hospital?) - are more than sufficient to demand the turning over those persons

Check your facts. The one who had his leg amputated in Baghdad also visited an Ansar Al-Islam facility in northern Iraq- a fundie Islam group dedicated to overthrowing the Saddam's regime, and with no proven ties to Al-Qaeda- but perhaps ties to Iran. In addition, I find the assertion that a terrorist in Baghdad would be impossible without Saddam knowing about it, even if he was only there for a period of weeks, amusing considering how many terrorists infest how many countries, including the 19 9/11 hijakcers presence in America for how long? Is Saddam omnipotent now? The man is all over the place- he's also been in Syria, Qatar, Iran, Lebananon etc. I should also point out that no intelligence service has made the argument that this man (can't be bothered writing his name) is a credible link.

The CIA does not know where he is, whether he still has ties to Al-Qaeda (Tenet called him an independent back in mid-February).

[Axis Kast]

Check your facts. The one who had his leg amputated in Baghdad also visited an Ansar Al-Islam facility in northern Iraq- a fundie Islam group dedicated to overthrowing the Saddam's regime, and with no proven ties to Al-Qaeda- but perhaps ties to Iran. In addition, I find the assertion that a terrorist in Baghdad would be impossible without Saddam knowing about it, even if he was only there for a period of weeks, amusing considering how many terrorists infest how many countries, including the 19 9/11 hijakcers presence in America for how long? Is Saddam omnipotent now? The man is all over the place- he's also been in Syria, Qatar, Iran, Lebananon etc. I should also point out that no intelligence service has made the argument that this man (can't be bothered writing his name) is a credible link.

The CIA does not know where he is, whether he still has ties to Al-Qaeda (Tenet called him an independent back in mid-February).

If Hussein’s dragnets are so capable, how was this man able to enjoy surgery in a Baghdad clinic?

According to The Associated Press, Abu Musab Zarqawi is “a senior associated of Osama Bin Laden.” While the article admits the possibility of his being traced or “baited” by agents of Hussein, it also highlights his connection to “the October killing of an American diplomat in Amman” and “the failed millennium bombing of a tourist hotel in Jordan.” U.S. officials are reportedly certain that Zarqawi spent time in Baghdad – during which he likely enjoyed the use of hospitals or clinics in the area – and also speculates that certain members of his cell are still in residence. He is “linked” to Ansar al-Islam, and is now operating as an independent, autonomous of “al-Qaeda’s chain of command.” Zarqawi’s group maintains ties to Bin Laden however, and it is supposed that “while he manages his own network of followers, he relies on al-Qaeda money and logistical support, making him – in effect, if not in reality – a lieutenant of Bin Laden.” This from American intelligence sources.

Again, I don’t see how the argument that America “missed” terrorists is cogent to the situation in Iraq. As much as you might like to develop connections, the fact of the matter is that this war isn’t moral. We’re not looking to stave off accusations of hypocrisy. It’s all about keeping America and its allies safe. We can fulfill that objective by overthrowing the Ba’ath régime, deposing Hussein, and subsequently cutting off ties and chasing to ground people such as Zarqawi – no matter whether or not an enemy of Baghdad. And your assertion that he is moving with Hussein’s knowledge is particularly interesting, considering that while his leg was being amputated, this operative of al-Qaeda was within the Iraqi government’s clear grasp. He didn’t act. In order to ensure our security, we should.

[Vympel]

If Hussein’s dragnets are so capable, how was this man able to enjoy surgery in a Baghdad clinic?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Who says his dragnets must be capable?

Again, I don’t see how the argument that America “missed” terrorists is cogent to the situation in Iraq.

So while it's reasonable to expect that American intellignece services will miss things like three planes slamming into their national monuments, it all of a sudden becomes inconcievable that Iraq wouldn't know about some guy from Afghanistan getting his leg amputated and then disappaearing. Why wouldn't they want to catch him, considering his ties to Ansar Al-Islam?

As much as you might like to develop connections, the fact of the matter is that this war isn’t moral ... snip ranting

Ah, the moral pygmy speaks.

[Axis Kast]

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Who says his dragnets must be capable?

As an American citizen, I’m not necessarily content to know that terrorists in connection with al-Qaeda are running around in Iraq beyond Hussein’s grasp. Again, this is icing atop a virtual layer cake of categorical violation, proliferation, subversion, and deceit. We’re talking about a régime yet to fully declare each of its stockpiles; whose disarmament is still the equivalent of slow, painstaking tooth-pulling (dependant on the presence of British and American troops, no less); that was recently discovered to be in possession of a series of missiles whose ranges exceed United Nations mandate (and whose infrastructure is capable of supporting weapons with four times as much thrust); that has been confirmed to be in possession of prohibited items that might potentially be machined into nuclear centrifuges; and that is suspected of empowering the al-Qaeda terrorist network via its own links with HAMAS and Hizbollah.

So while it's reasonable to expect that American intelligence services will miss things like three planes slamming into their national monuments, it all of a sudden becomes inconceivable that Iraq wouldn't know about some guy from Afghanistan getting his leg amputated and then disappearing. Why wouldn't they want to catch him, considering his ties to Ansar Al-Islam?

We’re not talking about the United States – now beyond reasonable reproach. We’re talking about Iraq – in the line of fire. If Hussein cannot secure his own nation against al-Qaeda cells whose purpose is to sow destruction among Coalition ground forces, it’s high time to move in and secure the region ourselves.

Ah, the moral pygmy speaks.

Morals exist on the global forum only as an opinion of the majority – and then selectively enforced. Criticisms of this war on moral grounds – that we empowered Hussein, that we can’t topple a sovereign government, or that moving without the United Nations is wrong and illegal – are moot. The fact is that in this situation, the American government is going to practice preemption whether or not it makes certain parties feel “unfuzzy.”

The world isn’t a nice place. According to an acquaintance of mine, Brad Swallows, we’ve got two groups. One that feels Hussein is a threat and is no longer willing to tolerate the possibility that he represents a clear and present danger. Another that is content to bury its head in the sand -certain that only the United States will fall under assault. Their opinions over this matter range from, “So what?” to, “They deserve it, the bastards!” And these people – most of whom sell guns to Iraq even now – are telling us not to go in? Ha!

[Vympel]

Spare me your ranting. I already sliced up your pathetic arguments once, pulling out your tired speculation and rantings about might makes right like the common bully that you are one more time won't help your case. There's a reason why you have that custom title.

[Hamel]

Axass wrote:

He possesses unmanned aerial drones capable of dispersing chemicals.

If planes made of wood and tape are a threat to the United States...

[Vympel]

If planes made of wood and tape are a threat to the United States...

It's the Iraqi version of Globalhawk- on the uberrrrrr-cheap !

Of course, never mind that it's fitted out to take reconaissance equipment just like every other damn UAV and would be useless in any sort of terrorist attack considering it's design screams 'made in Iraq'- but let that not dissaude the morons.

[Axis Kast]

Spare me your ranting. I already sliced up your pathetic arguments once, pulling out your tired speculation and rantings about might makes right like the common bully that you are one more time won't help your case. There's a reason why you have that custom title.

My “ranting”? My “pathetic arguments”? What? You uncovered a misquotation? Wow. Everything else is as much speculation on your part as on mine – valid considering that speculation is the stuff of strategy.

You can in no way prove to me that Hussein won’t make a dangerous gamble involving Israel’s fate or his own – especially were we to withdraw from the Persian Gulf altogether. You can in no way prove to me that Hussein isn’t still proliferating weapons of mass destruction, just as others have and continue to do despite the presence of the IAEA and other organizations of the UNMOVIC type. You can in no way prove to me that Hussein isn’t supporting the operations of terrorist groups including HAMAS or Hizbollah. You can in no way prove to me that Hussein isn’t indirectly responsible for trained recruits falling into line with al-Qaeda. You can in no way prove to me that the men of Ansar Al-Islam will not attack American or British targets – just as it has been speculated they intend to. You claim I make a poor argument. But at least I don’t bury my head in the sand and refuse to take stock of a dangerous situation.

Might does make right. It’s not anything you can deny. The world is not graced my some moralistic code. We pick and chose our enforcement just as we pick and chose our cultural biases and personal interests as nation-states. Morality and legality are creatures of the powerful – on an individual basis or as part of a larger whole. My law and my reasoning are only worthwhile so long as I can compel you to honor and enact. How do I manage that? Via war, coercion, and the like. This is fact. None of your anger will change it.

My “custom title?” Oh no! Called a “jingoistic imperialist” and self-serving American bastard by an Australian half a world a way. Damn proud of it, too.

If planes made of wood and tape are a threat to the United States…

Hans Blix himself acknowledged in a report to the United Nations Security Council that the drones in question could be used to disperse chemicals among troop deployments in the region.

[Axis Kast]

Of course, never mind that it's fitted out to take reconaissance equipment just like every other damn UAV and would be useless in any sort of terrorist attack considering it's design screams 'made in Iraq'- but let that not dissaude the morons.

You truly believe that Saddam would sooner deploy a handful of UAVs on resonance missions rather than load drop-tanks or biological canisters and pilot them directly into a formation of Coalition troops once the invasion begins – or just before?

[Darth Wong]

You can in no way prove to me that Hussein won’t make a dangerous gamble involving Israel’s fate or his own – especially were we to withdraw from the Persian Gulf altogether.

Ahhh, war unless an impossible scenario of absolutely guaranteed passivity is achieved. Unfalsifiable pretenses are so convenient, aren't they? I'm not entirely sold on either position regarding this war, but that doesn't mean I can't point out bullshit when I see it.

Might does make right. It’s not anything you can deny.

Actually, many people DO deny that, and you can't dismiss those criticisms by simply ignoring them.

The world is not graced my some moralistic code.

Clearly not, since you exist.

Morality and legality are creatures of the powerful – on an individual basis or as part of a larger whole. My law and my reasoning are only worthwhile so long as I can compel you to honor and enact. How do I manage that? Via war, coercion, and the like. This is fact. None of your anger will change it.

You are conjoining the issues of intrinsic value and enforcability into one. Quite sneaky; I'll bet you think you're quite clever for doing that.

My “custom title?” Oh no! Called a “jingoistic imperialist” and self-serving American bastard by an Australian half a world a way. Damn proud of it, too.

That's the beauty of it; you're too arrogant to realize it's an insult.

If planes made of wood and tape are a threat to the United States…

Hans Blix himself acknowledged in a report to the United Nations Security Council that the drones in question could be used to disperse chemicals among troop deployments in the region.

So? An envelope "could be used to disperse" biological agents, too. Quick! Destroy the US Postal Service!!!! Call in the bombers!!

[Hamel]

If planes made of wood and tape are a threat to the United States…

Hans Blix himself acknowledged in a report to the United Nations Security Council that the drones in question could be used to disperse chemicals among troop deployments in the region.

Did he know, at the time, of the laughable capabilities of these contraptions? Did Blix know that these "aircraft" could only be controlled within human visual ranges?

[Axis Kast]

Ahhh, war unless an impossible scenario of absolutely guaranteed passivity is achieved. Unfalsifiable pretenses are so convenient, aren't they? I'm not entirely sold on either position regarding this war, but that doesn't mean I can't point out bullshit when I see it.

And no war unless an impossible scenario of direct attacks is achieved? You people are all for letting the man continue developing weapons in secret and continuing to funnel resources into the hands of organizations that kill American citizens, of course. Admirable agenda indeed.

Actually, many people DO deny that, and you can't dismiss those criticisms by simply ignoring them.

It’s incorrect. As I’ve said many times, morals and legality are relative only to the degree that you can force them upon others. The United Nations’ legitimacy is build around the threat of military action against those who do not accept its rulings.

Clearly not, since you exist.

Oh! So funny!

You are conjoining the issues of intrinsic value and enforcability into one. Quite sneaky; I'll bet you think you're quite clever for doing that.

This isn’t a question of intrinsic value. Only of enforceability. We’re talking about the global community, nor you or I as individuals.

That's the beauty of it; you're too arrogant to realize it's an insult.

No. I’m not silly or ridiculous enough to become offended.

So? An envelope "could be used to disperse" biological agents, too. Quick! Destroy the US Postal Service!!!! Call in the bombers!!

This is an umanned aerial drone – not a paper airplane. You might be willing to take risks with the security of American troops. I am not.

Did he know, at the time, of the laughable capabilities of these contraptions? Did Blix know that these "aircraft" could only be controlled within human visual ranges?

So Hussein posts observers. Wow.

[Darth Wong]

Ahhh, war unless an impossible scenario of absolutely guaranteed passivity is achieved. Unfalsifiable pretenses are so convenient, aren't they? I'm not entirely sold on either position regarding this war, but that doesn't mean I can't point out bullshit when I see it.

And no war unless an impossible scenario of direct attacks is achieved?

You just admitted that direct, aggressive military action from Iraq is so unlikely that it can be considered "impossible". Concession accepted. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You can in no way prove to me that Hussein won’t make a dangerous gamble involving Israel’s fate or his own – especially were we to withdraw from the Persian Gulf altogether.

Ahhh, war unless an impossible scenario of absolutely guaranteed passivity is achieved. Unfalsifiable pretenses are so convenient, aren't they? I'm not entirely sold on either position regarding this war, but that doesn't mean I can't point out bullshit when I see it.

The unfalsifiable pretense works in both directions in this case. There's no way to prove anything about Saddam's intentions. Based on his previous behaviour, then, the way to err on the side of caution is to remove him.

Actually, many people DO deny that, and you can't dismiss those criticisms by simply ignoring them.

No, but you can shoot them dead, which makes an incredibly powerful argument when you think about it. The opposition can be silenced. More often than not the history of the world is dictators manoeuvring to power in pre-existing autocracies and ruthlessly killing their ambition, launching wars of conquest with varying degrees of success, and dying peacefully in their beds. Hitler's fate was an aberration.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Mike, you read Sun-Tzu - You surely must have, considering those quotes for Conquest - and you must understand what I'm talking about. The world hasn't changed all that much - especially human nature, which hasn't changed at all - since he was writing. And human nature, I might emphasize, is inherently one of power.