Spain vs America

[Illuminatus Primus]

Hemlock, quiet!

I almost heard the "slurp, slurp" sounds as theski proceeded with a fresh round of Bush fellatio.

[CJvR]

theski, all the links who posted are from the 90's. The most recent inspections, if you might recall, occured in 2002.

Yes and IIRC Blix himself reported to the UNSC in his reports prior to the war that the Iraqi cooperation, while improved, still wasn't satisfactory. Indeed the only time the Iraqis did cooperate to the satisfaction of the inspectors was when the threat of war was imminent. Then France started talking veto and gave Saddam enough spine to stand up to the US and thus giving Bush an excuse. It is not certain that even a complete cavein would have saved Saddam but he probably would have had a better chance surrendering than fighting.

[CJvR]

The Al Qaeda link was BS, though he did support terrorists. He gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers.

He gave money to the families of suicide bombers who had already blown themselves up. Not the same thing at all.

And this isn't sponsoring terrorism because...?

[BoredShirtless]

Then France started talking veto and gave Saddam enough spine to stand up to the US and thus giving Bush an excuse.

How was Saddam standing up to the US?

It is not certain that even a complete cavein would have saved Saddam but he probably would have had a better chance surrendering than fighting.

It is very certain that a complete cavein wouldn't have saved Saddam, because the complete cavein didn't save him.

[theski]

Illuminatus Primus wrote

almost heard the "slurp, slurp" sounds as theski proceeded with a fresh round of Bush fellatio

First.... Fuck off and second what the fuck does that have to do with posting some Iraq obstructions.. I don't think I mentioned Bush Once....

[TheDarkling]

And this isn't sponsoring terrorism because...?

He was helping victims of Israeli revenge attacks, although I have no doubt he did it to take the sting out of suicide bombing (from the bombers point of view) he was in effect righting an Israeli wrong (that being blowing up family homes because of the crime of one member of said family).

[Darth Wong]

He gave money to the families of suicide bombers who had already blown themselves up. Not the same thing at all.

And this isn't sponsoring terrorism because...?

And this is sponsoring Al-Quaeda because ...?

If America was really against "terrorism" in general, they'd be hunting down the people in America who send money to Irish terrorists. Seen any sting operations on that front lately? Any bombing campaigns in the northeastern US?

What the fuck do Palestinians have to do with this, except for America's bizarre insistence on tying its international fortunes to those of Israel?

[CJvR]

He was helping victims of Israeli revenge attacks, although I have no doubt he did it to take the sting out of suicide bombing (from the bombers point of view) he was in effect righting an Israeli wrong (that being blowing up family homes because of the crime of one member of said family).

So in effect reducing one of the few deterrents available. "Go ahead blow yourself to hell, I will take care of your family" You don't think that is sponsoring terrorism?

[BoredShirtless]

He was helping victims of Israeli revenge attacks, although I have no doubt he did it to take the sting out of suicide bombing (from the bombers point of view) he was in effect righting an Israeli wrong (that being blowing up family homes because of the crime of one member of said family).

So in effect reducing one of the few deterrents available. "Go ahead blow yourself to hell, I will take care of your family" You don't think that is sponsoring terrorism?

Are insurance payouts sponsoring car accidents? Stop being a dick.

[Glocksman]

He was helping victims of Israeli revenge attacks, although I have no doubt he did it to take the sting out of suicide bombing (from the bombers point of view) he was in effect righting an Israeli wrong (that being blowing up family homes because of the crime of one member of said family).

So in effect reducing one of the few deterrents available. "Go ahead blow yourself to hell, I will take care of your family" You don't think that is sponsoring terrorism?

Were Hussein's payoffs to Palestinian bomber's families for attacks against Israel enough to justify an invasion by the United States?

Don't get me wrong. The Mossad could have taken him out and I probably would have donated a pizza in appreciation, but Hussein was not a threat to the US.

[TheDarkling]

So in effect reducing one of the few deterrents available. "Go ahead blow yourself to hell, I will take care of your family" You don't think that is sponsoring terrorism?

It is a deterrent I don't agree with so I have no problem with Saddam redressing the balance for innocent (as in not convicted) Palestinian victims.

As Darth Wong points out Bostonians did far worse (funding direct arm acquirement, smuggling of weapons and so on)yet the US never seemed too bothered about it so Saddam doing far less and it getting trumped up as supporting terrorism cast a bad light on the US government, of course the US turning a bad eye to funding IRA terrorism is just one part of a much grander oddity (I have always found it amusing that while the US was paying right wing dictators on what almost amounted to a per communist killed basis they were unconcerned about their own populaces support for Marxist terrorists operating in their most important allies nation).

[The Albino Raven]

Don't get me wrong. The Mossad could have taken him out and I probably would have donated a pizza in appreciation, but Hussein was not a threat to the US.

Yet again, refuting one of the major reasons for invasion. The term imminent threat was uttered dozens of times before the war, and now we realize that the threat was anything but imminent and that we just pissed a bunch of people off.

[CJvR]

Are insurance payouts sponsoring car accidents? Stop being a dick.

Ehh? Since when do insurance companies pay out to those who deliberatly commit suicide? If an insurence company payed out to those that managed to kill themselves but not those who stayed alive then it would obviously sponsor car accidents. One of their normal conditions however is that the policy holder is trying to stay alive. Saddam's policy work the other way around and Im quite surprised at your inability to understand something so simple.

[CJvR]

Were Hussein's payoffs to Palestinian bomber's families for attacks against Israel enough to justify an invasion by the United States?

More of an Israeli problem but it was sponsoring terror.

[CJvR]

It is a deterrent I don't agree with so I have no problem with Saddam redressing the balance for innocent (as in not convicted) Palestinian victims.

Well that is quite allright, punishing innocents is a questionable tactic but that doesn't alter the fact that Saddam's actions sponsor terrorism.

[SirNitram]

It is a deterrent I don't agree with so I have no problem with Saddam redressing the balance for innocent (as in not convicted) Palestinian victims.

Well that is quite allright, punishing innocents is a questionable tactic but that doesn't alter the fact that Saddam's actions sponsor terrorism.

And that doesn't change the fact the US's accusations of him working with AQ, having WMD, and being in a position to sell WMD, are all complete fabrications.

[TheDarkling]

Well that is quite allright, punishing innocents is a questionable tactic but that doesn't alter the fact that Saddam's actions sponsor terrorism.

Was he buying the weapons for them to use?
Was he hiring people?
Was he smuggling arms to them?

If he was then yes he was sponsoring Palestinian terrorism but giving aid to the families of the bombers isn't sponsoring terror in my eyes when the local government authority targets those families for retribution.

[Master of Ossus]

Are insurance payouts sponsoring car accidents? Stop being a dick.

No, because if someone intentionally gets themselves killed in a car accident then their families receive no money, and the person can go to jail if he's still alive. There is a clear difference here: the payouts to the families of suicide bombers were being compensated for the deliberate actions of their family members, and they were being specifically paid in an effort to harm Israelis.

[Darth Wong]

Are insurance payouts sponsoring car accidents? Stop being a dick.

No, because if someone intentionally gets themselves killed in a car accident then their families receive no money, and the person can go to jail if he's still alive. There is a clear difference here: the payouts to the families of suicide bombers were being compensated for the deliberate actions of their family members, and they were being specifically paid in an effort to harm Israelis.

Don't be a nitpicker. After a two-year exclusion period, life insurance pays off even if you commit suicide. By your logic, life insurance companies are sponsoring suicide.

[BoredShirtless]

Are insurance payouts sponsoring car accidents? Stop being a dick.

Ehh? Since when do insurance companies pay out to those who deliberatly commit suicide?

Some do. Insurance companies were like Saddam, in that they compensate insurance holders much like he had compensated families. See below for why I think what he did was compensation, not sponsorship.

If an insurence company payed out to those that managed to kill themselves but not those who stayed alive then it would obviously sponsor car accidents. One of their normal conditions however is that the policy holder is trying to stay alive. Saddam's policy work the other way around and Im quite surprised at your inability to understand something so simple.

I understand it fine. What you don't get is the big picture. In the big picture, where nations are deciding whether they should go to war, “sponsoring terrorists” should refer to sponsorhip activities which make an observable difference, which include: providing intelligence, money and weapons to terrorist organisations. Not what is essentially a sympathy payout.