Bush says UN can help stop spread of nuclear weapons. How serious is he?

[90's sc vet]

SC Vet:
I don't have time to sit here and address you point by point. Let me say this. Saddam had no weapons. Ok? Bush knew this. He says he went in "on the best intelligence".

Did you read the Clinton statements about Hussein and Iraq? How about the UN resolutions over WMD in Iraq? There's a very long history of suspicion about WMD in Iraq.

I guess this is where we disagree. Iraq had two nuclear weapons programs, one in the early 80's, one in the early 90's. Iraq produced and used poison gas against the Kurds and Iran.
I don't see how you can argue that Bush "knew" there wasn't any WMD in Iraq when the preponderance of evidence prior to GW2 was the opposite.

We know for a fact that he ignored the "best intelligence" which were the inspectors on the ground in Iraq peaking around. What better intelligence is there than that? I'm not sure what part of that doesn't sink in, but that's the simple fact.

That was one of Hussein's stupidest mistakes, ejecting the UN inspectors in 1998 (BTW, note the year). After that, no one could know what was happening in Iraq. So your assertion that the best people to know what was going on in Iraq, the inspectors on the ground, is false. There hadn't been any inspectors in Iraq since 1998. In any case, Iraq's early 90's nuclear program was entirely missed by the UN inspectors. I think that was probably a major reason why the US felt that the inspection programs were unreliable. That inspection failure happened again just recently in North Korea.

Also, you stated Hussein is a terrorist because he went into Kuwait and Iran without provocation. Think about that statement for a minute. And you probably wonder why they hate us.

You've lost me. Isn't it true that Hussein attacked two Muslim nations without any pretext? How does saying that Hussein is a murderous terrorist make Muslims hate the US? How does that not make Hussein a terrorist? I'm sure the Iranian soldiers who were hit with poison gas and the 350+ Kuwaiti citizens who are still missing after GW1 were terrorized.

I don't get it, are you actually defending Hussein? Are you actually saying that he wasn't a menace to every country in the region, including US allies?

So you think Saudi Arabia gets a pass because they supplied only money to Al Qaida? As opposed to the country that supplied, well, nothing? But Iraq wanted us harmed? And i suppose supplying Al Qaida with funding doesn't indicate they wanted us harmed? And they've reformed? Ok, whatever. So did Hussein. He did exactly what he was asked....got rid of his WMD program, and we knew it.

No, as I said, Saudi Arabia gets a pass because they've cooperated with the US after 9/11. Some elements in Saudi Arabia want to harm the US and the current Saudi government is now rounding those people up and putting them in jail.

Saudi Arabia couldn't supply WMD to al Qaeda so the harm they could do was limited to money. Iraq historically has always had WMD and used them. AFAIK, that was the basis of the decision to go to GW2.

I've never seen anyone allege that Bush "knew" that all the WMD had been removed from Iraq before the war started. Do you have some links for that? How could anyone know such a thing?

BTW, were you serious when you said that Iraq didn't want to harm the US or was that another bit of sarcasm that I'm missing? I'm sure Bush Sr would disagree with you, Hussein tried to have him assassinated.

And Bush may have known the Iraqi oil revenues are too small to pay for this thing. But he said it. Wolfowitz specifically said it before Congress. What he knows and what he passes off on the American people are definitely 2 different things so i wouldn't let that little fact deter ya.

I report, you decide.

I read those reports. Actually, they all said the same thing, that the Bush adminstration never claimed that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the entire war and reconstruction, as you alleged.

Wolfiwitz's statement is consistent with that, even he said that "Iraq would be able to pick up much of the tab for postwar rebuilding".

And that's exactly what is happening.

Do you have a link that supports your contention that Bush said Iraqi oil would pay for the entire military operation and reconstruction?

But I think this quote is very apt:

"NSC spokesman Mike Anton said that in the event of war and a military occupation the oil revenues would be used "not so much to fund the operation and maintaining American forces but for humanitarian aid, refugees, possibly for infrastructure rebuilding, that kind of thing."

That's pretty much exactly what the US has done and I don't see any problem with it.

 

[90's sc vet]

Well, this assumes a major assumption on your part that Clinton didn't indicate to Bush that Al Qaida was a major issue that needed to be dealt with. I think that assumption is, frankly, garbage, but to each his own.

Yes, I've made that assumption. Because to assume anything else means that Clinton was negligent and not merely stupid.

You've confused me. First you say that both Clinton and Bush did jack squat about al Qaeda, now you're saying that you think Clinton told Bush that al Qaeda was a major issue?

If that's true, then why do you say that Clinton did jack squat? Isn't that now a very serious accusation?

Again, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that Clinton did jack squat and then turn around and try to claim that he told Bush that al Qaeda was a major threat. Or is that more sarcasm I'm missing?

In any case, I'd conclude that in the time Bush had before 9/11, he had done more than Clinton. At least Bush recognized the problem and was preparing to do something about it.

BTW, do you have any links that indicate Clinton told Bush that al Qaeda was the top national security threat? I read a few articles right after 9/11 that indicated Clinton didn't think that was the case, and I read one recently where Clinton claimed otherwise. I'm interested because if Clinton truly did say that al Qaeda was a major security threat during the transition, his bumbling strategy prior to his leaving office ought to be regarded as criminal negligence rather than merely the actions of someone who didn't want to face serious threats.

 

[90's sc vet]

Originally posted by Ickabod
Here's the link to Saddam turning down Pakistans offer.

Thanks, I hadn't come across that story yet.

But that article seems to support Bush's position. Here are some relevant clips:

"The United States also feared that the Iraqis while rejecting the offer in 1990 may have planned to revive it after the war, with one inspector noting that the Iraqis had kept it secret from U.N. inspectors for nearly five years. .”Why’d they keep it secret?” asked one inspector. “Unless they had plans to go back to him after we finished our inspections.”"

"“If you approach them with an offer of a critical technology and they dismiss your offer, that could mean they have already mastered that technology,” said the official, who added that the United States did try some stings during the Gulf War, but that he was not aware of anything like the Khan offer."

But I think the practical problem the US had prior to GW2 was how to explain Hussein's reluctance to allow further inspections. If he had nothing to hide, why prevent the inspectors from going in?

When the fate of NYC or Washington hangs in the balance, I'm not sure that any President can take that chance and leave Hussein in power. Especially when nuclear experts like Khan are offering to sell him information on how to make a nuclear bomb.

The US had always been reluctant to go to war. Until this one. Bush and his pals were frothing at the mouth at this one.

I agree with you on this point. Hussein has been a menace in the region for decades, he was a murderous tyrant and of all the world leaders next to the Taliban, he was the most deserving to be removed from power. Bush was eager to remove him and I think that was an excellent idea after 9/11.

Prior to 9/11, the US probably would have done what it has always done, contain him. But after 9/11, that option was no longer safe.

You said i'm supporting a murderous dictatorial tyrant by being against this war. That's bull, but fine, you can say it. Then i can only suppose that you support every other murderous dictatorial tyrant that you're not proposing war against to remove.

Well, you still haven't answered my question. In opposing GW2, you're effectively defending Hussein's right to continue in power. What principle are you defending? And how do you defend those principles in light of the mass graves and the numerous stories about how the Hussein regime tortured and killed their own citizens?

I'm absolutely sure that you don't support murderous tyrants as a matter of habit. But in opposing GW2, that's effectively what you're doing. It's a conumdrum that all liberals have but none of them have had the balls to admit it.

You said that no one has answered your question about what Bush did prior to 9/11 and I answered. So answer my question, it's your turn now

 

[90's sc vet]

Re: And oh by the way...one more thing....

I'm sure Bin Laden won't be using Iraq as part of his strategy. (that was sarcasm again).

Oddly enough, bin Laden is using Iraq as part of his strategy. If you go over the audio tapes he's released, he's calling on Muslims to join the fight in Iraq.

But rather than talk endlessly about who said what, or who knew what, let's talk about the situation facing the US after 9/11 but before GW2.

The kind of threat 9/11 exposed was new and I think you can reconstruct the baseline threat the US probably is considering.

IIRC, you only need a few hundred pounds of weaponized Anthrax to kill much of the population of a major city.

So the plan would have probably involved five or fewer operatives and used a crop dusting airplane. One or two trained pilots and a few helpers to get the airplane and hide and load the Anthrax.

That's basically the 9/11 plan but with two changes. Fewer operatives to improve security and the pilot would be trained outside the US. Al Qaeda probably knows that they'll never be able to take advantage of US training facilities ever again.

The Anthrax is shipped in a few containers the size of medium luggage pieces. Millions of containers like that are shipped to the US every day, chances are, the shipment will succeed.

The airplane is stolen and loaded. You fly the airplane over NYC or Washington and thousands of people are dead.

This plan can't be stopped from the US side, how do you find 5 people out of 300M US citizens? That's the scary thing about 9/11 and that's why the DOJ has always said that al Qaeda operatives are probably still in the US. You can't find them if they're clean and stay that way.

But what is interesting is looking at the plan from the al Qaeda side.

You can get the suicidal terrorists. If you watched the 60 minutes interview with Zarahari, he said it was easy to get people like that. You know that you can get the operatives into the US, just use people who are brand new recruits and aren't yet known to Western intelligence agencies. So up to this point, it's old hat, just do the same things you did before 9/11.

The real problem is the Anthrax. You need it in weaponized powder form. Where can you get stuff like that?

No Western nation will sell it to you after 9/11. Russia won't, it's having problems with Muslim terrorists right now. China has problems with Muslims in some regions. No other Middle Eastern state is making anything like weaponized Anthrax. Forget about any Asian country. Even North Korea was afraid to sell nuclear technology to Hussein, and AFAIK, they produce nuclear bombs, not Anthrax.

The only place that had anything like that is Iraq. Iraq has always had WMD production facilities.

When you look at the plan, it has two parts. The part in the US can't be stopped. But if you can eliminate the source of the Anthrax, the plan will fail.

But look at the situation after GW2. Iraq is in shambles, all their weapons production facilities have been looted.
There's no other place where you can get any form of easily obtainable and transportable WMD. So al Qaeda's advantage in small invisible units, while it still exists, is now powerless. They don't have anything to deliver.

So you have to take the removal of Hussein in context. AFAIK, he was the last remaining rogue source of chemical or biological WMD, all other nations are under tight control.

Still, I'd be interested if you had another point of view on this problem. If that's the baseline threat the US is trying to manage, it's easy to see why Hussein had to be removed. He was the other half of a deadly plan.

AFAIK, this isn't science fiction. It's what al Qaeda did before 9/11 and it's known that some of their operatives looked into crop dusting flying lessons.

It was while thinking about this problem that I began to agree with the Bush plan to eliminate Hussein. To be sure, there would be major repercussions.

Leaving Hussein in power would mean that you'd have to hope that for the next few decades, you'd be able to keep him under control.

But the magnitude of the problem can be understood when you think back to the sniper situation in Wash DC. Those guys managed many successful assassinations and no one could stop them. Al Qaeda only needs one success and you know from the Wash DC sniper attacks that you'll probably get ten or more chances.

But remember that the plan can be easily altered. Replace the airplane with a subway and the Anthrax with a nerve gas and you have a similarly devastating effect. Or release the nerve gas or Anthrax into the ventilation system of a large office tower.

I can't figure out any other solution other than removing Hussein and taking the heat for whatever happens afterwards. You can't stop the plan once it's running in the US, the only hope is to remove any state sponsered resources that might be given to al Qaeda.

 

[90's sc vet]

Bullsh*t. Nowhere in resolution 984 is there a reference to US policy using the phrase 'except under certain circumstances'.

I think I've read enough to come to some conclusions about the 1995 P+O, the 2000 Document and the issue of negative security assurances (NSA).

http://www.acronym.org.uk/a12part2.htm

That web site has reports in the various NPT PrepCons and other meetings. If you look at the section under "Security Assurances" you'll find this part:

........
"UNSC 984 also noted the individual assurances provided by each of the NWS on 6 April 1995. The NWS had been unsuccessful in harmonising a collective ‘negative assurance’, principally because Britain, France, Russia and the United States insisted on exempting certain categories of States from their guarantee not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons, while China refused to abandon its broader non-use assurance and commitment to no first use. Each of the NWS therefore issued its own statement on negative assurances, with China reiterating its comprehensive assurance and the other four utilising almost identical language, as represented in the US declaration: "The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carries out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State."

These ‘voluntary’ assurances have long been regarded inadequate by many NPT States parties and for years Nigeria has co-ordinated NAM proposals for a legally binding treaty on non-use and security assurances. The 1995 P&O contained one paragraph, noting UNSC 984 and the individual declarations and saying that "further steps should be considered to assure non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding instrument."
.............

So you can see, the NWS were not able to come to an agreement over NSA.

That explains why the language in Res 984 was so vague, that the UN "appreciates" the various statements made by the NWS about NSAs and why each statement was named as a separate document in Res 984.

The NSAs were not part of the 1995 additions to the NPT. Instead, as I mentioned, the April 1995 Presidential Declaration was a voluntary statement of US policy and not a binding part of the NPT. So the US can change that policy at any time without being in a material breach of the NPT.

Your assertion that the US, in moving to the new preemptive strategy, was in violation of the NPT with respect to NAS is incorrect.

If you read the other reports, you'll see that there was quite a lot of disagreement in the PrepCons leading up to the 2000 conference and no agreement was ever reached. That's why the 2000 conference paper is called the "Final Document" and not a "Decision" as the 1995 report was labelled. The 2000 Final Document was never agreed to be part of the NPT.

Your assertion that the US is in material breach of the NPT over Step 7 of the 2000 Final Document on the issue of producing a non nuclear ABM system is also incorrect.

The 1995 P+O, AFAIK, was added to the NPT. However, Step 8 was only a wish list item, directing the various parties to eventually come to a legally binding agreement over NSA. But you'll see that issue didn't re-emerge in the 2000 Final Document.

I was certain I'd find something along these lines. When the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty and announced the new preemptive strategy, no one complained that the US was in material breach of the NPT. Someone would have said something if that had been the case. But there was only silence about NPT issues, which is understandable because the NPT wasn't relevant.

 

[Ickabod]

You said that no one has answered your question about what Bush did prior to 9/11 and I answered. So answer my question, it's your turn now

Oh Ch**st, i answered you twice already. But for the 3rd time, my perspective (i don't speak for all liberals) is you don't lie people into a war. Period. Case closed. I'll say it again, since the fact you haven't gotten that the first 2 times i said it makes me wonder if you'll get the 3rd. You don't lie a country into war. Again, i was pro war until Bush started lying about it. How about i lie you into a war? Wanna go? And beyond that, for all his atrocities, the other fact remains that the evil of Saddam Hussein was as muted as it had been in the 30 years of his rule. Those mass graves were all 13 years old or older. So let's take out Ghaddafi for the Lockerbie garbage? Oh yeah, he gave up his WMD's. Well so did Hussein. For the umpteenth time, so did Saddam Hussein. Invoking 9/11 (you sound like a broken record) will not change the fact that he HAD NOTHING!! HE WAS NOT A THREAT. Your other rambling post i didn't even bother to read because i got 4 sentences in and i could tell it was entirely based on Saddam having WMD's. And even if he did have them, whether in Anthrax form or whatever else, attacking him would only push him to give them to terrorist groups. So the war was dumb if he had them, and it's even dumber since he doesn't.

You speak of conundrums. Let me check google. Surely, there are thousands upon thousands of articles by conservative patriots calling for the liberation of the Iraqi people back in the 1990's. (i'm guessing you'll bring up 9/11 again...and again....and again). And i'm sure every one of them is calling for the President to LIE us into a war to accomplish that. If Bush had been honest, and expressed the legitimately real reasons for going to war in Iraq, frankly, he wouldn't have lost me on the issue, though he probably would have had trouble getting the support of the rest of America. Very early on (even before his speech to the UN) i remember a lot of resistance to the whole idea. I remember saying to a friend that it was kind of ironic that the only thing i agreed with Bush on (at the time, the notion of going to war) was the thing he was getting the most grief from the rest of the country over.

 

[Ickabod]

I'm sorry, apparently i don't have as much free time as you do. Several of your statements are utter nonsense, but i feel like i'm discussing this with someone who would insist OJ didn't kill anybody. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[Snook.fr]

??
90 SC VET, are you having fun?
No one's ever posted 7 posts in a row in the same thread !!

 

[90's sc vet]

Oh Ch**st, i answered you twice already. But for the 3rd time, my perspective (i don't speak for all liberals) is you don't lie people into a war. Period. Case closed.

So you're saying that the mass graves, the rapes, the attacks on Kuwait and Iran, all that is balanced off by the fact that Bush assumed (like Clinton and the UN) that Iraq had WMD but was wrong?

So Bush being wrong (or lying, but I noticed that you weren't able to come up with a url to support that idea) means that you're now satisified that Hussein should have stayed in power?

You've answered the question, which makes me shake my head. You'd rather leave a murderous tyrant in power if the reason for taking him out turns out to be wrong.

And beyond that, for all his atrocitiesi had been in the 30 years of his rule. Those mass graves were all 13 yeaties, the other fact remains that the evil of Saddam Hussein was as muted as itrs old or older.

So you're saying that murdering a few hundred thousand people is OK if it happened more than 13 years ago?

I didn't know liberals were so forgiving, especially when it's other people's lives. Aren't liberals supposed to be in favour of democracy, human rights and the right to life? All that goes out the window if the reason for spreading those concepts around the world happens to coincide with being wrong about eliminating WMD from a region.

Invoking 9/11 (you sound like a broken record) will not change the fact that he

So as a liberal, you're saying that 9/11 it isn't a factor in current US foreign policy? So you're comfortable with 2900+ people being murdered and taking out the only remaining threat in the Middle East isn't worth doing?

BTW, I actually was hoping that you'd examine the baseline threat the US is facing. AFAIK, it's close to the real situation that US is facing right now.

The problem is, whenever I bring it up with liberals, either they suddenly understand what Bush is trying to do or they recoil in horror because that threat example upsets their view of Bush. It's so much easier to think of Bush as some kind of nutbar and examining the actual threat is something they can't abide. I can see which side you're from.

Look at the US body count so far:

Civilians: 2900+
Soldiers: 500+

Don't you see? The front line in this war isn't in Kabul or Baghdad, it's right here. Every time you take an airline flight, go into the subway or enter a high rise office tower, you're entering a potential war zone. Bush is desperately trying to move the front line out of North America and into where it belongs, in the Islamic countries where the threat originates.

[
And even if he did have them, whether in Anthrax form or whatever else, attacking him would only push him to give them to terrorist groups.

Now you've really lost it. "Attacking him would only push him to give them to terrorist groups"? That was kind of hard to do from the hole in the ground he was hanging out in. The threat from Hussein is over. The threat from the Taliban is over. Those are good things. Get used to it.

(i'm guessing you'll bring up 9/11 again...and again....and again).

Yes, I will. Because whether or not you like it, 9/11 is the defining moment of this historical era. It's what is driving US domestic and foreign policy.

But I apologize. This has been a little hobby of mine of late. I call it "liberal pretzel making". The problem with being a liberal in the post 9/11 era is that there are several contradictory ideas in the heads of liberals. Trying to navigate around those contradictory ideas twists liberals into logic pretzels.

Bush has spread democracy, advanced women's rights in oppressive countries, taken out two of the worst dictatorships on earth. All good liberal ideals. The only problem is, he's done it in just two years whereas liberals have failed to do anything similar in decades.

So a conservative advancing liberal ideals and doing it so rapidly and efficiently seems to drive liberals insane. But each liberal chooses a different poison.

In your case, you want The Truth. A few million Iraqis, Iranians and Kuwaitis died but that's OK by you. The Truth is too valuable to you, so it's too bad, so sad, so many people had to perish.

Did it ever occur to you that what you're advancing has a very old name? It's called evil.

 

[90's sc vet]

??
90 SC VET, are you having fun?
No one's ever posted 7 posts in a row in the same thread !!

Sorry, there are actually three threads going on at the same time.

No, this isn't fun. But I thought I'd do my little bit to try to make people understand that we're all in a war where the enemy wants to kill as many innocent people as they can.

 

[90's sc vet]

I'm sorry, apparently i don't have as much free time as you do. Several of your statements are utter nonsense, but i feel like i'm discussing this with someone who would insist OJ didn't kill anybody. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

OK by me. Either I convert liberals into realists or they leave in a huff when they run out of counter arguments. ;->

BTW, I thought OJ did it.

But I'll give you a lot of credit, you really rolled with the punch over how quickly the US gets into wars. First you said the US always gets into wars quickly. I proved you wrong, then you did a 180 and used that to slam Bush.

So you went from saying that getting into a war quickly is the best way to saying that getting into a war quickly is the worst way, all without breaking a sweat. That's the best liberal quadruple lutz I've ever seen. ;->

All I'm saying is LIGHTEN UP. We're just talking about ideas here, it's not as if your balls are on a chopping block.

 

[*d*]

I think I've read enough to come to some conclusions about the 1995 P+O, the 2000 Document and the issue of negative security assurances (NSA).

http://www.acronym.org.uk/a12part2.htm

That web site has reports in the various NPT PrepCons and other meetings. If you look at the section under "Security Assurances" you'll find this part:
...
So you can see, the NWS were not able to come to an agreement over NSA.

That explains why the language in Res 984 was so vague, that the UN "appreciates" the various statements made by the NWS about NSAs and why each statement was named as a separate document in Res 984.

The NSAs were not part of the 1995 additions to the NPT. Instead, as I mentioned, the April 1995 Presidential Declaration was a voluntary statement of US policy and not a binding part of the NPT. So the US can change that policy at any time without being in a material breach of the NPT.

Your assertion that the US, in moving to the new preemptive strategy, was in violation of the NPT with respect to NAS is incorrect.

If you read the other reports, you'll see that there was quite a lot of disagreement in the PrepCons leading up to the 2000 conference and no agreement was ever reached. That's why the 2000 conference paper is called the "Final Document" and not a "Decision" as the 1995 report was labelled. The 2000 Final Document was never agreed to be part of the NPT.

Your assertion that the US is in material breach of the NPT over Step 7 of the 2000 Final Document on the issue of producing a non nuclear ABM system is also incorrect.

The 1995 P+O, AFAIK, was added to the NPT. However, Step 8 was only a wish list item, directing the various parties to eventually come to a legally binding agreement over NSA. But you'll see that issue didn't re-emerge in the 2000 Final Document.

I was certain I'd find something along these lines. When the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty and announced the new preemptive strategy, no one complained that the US was in material breach of the NPT. Someone would have said something if that had been the case. But there was only silence about NPT issues, which is understandable because the NPT wasn't relevant.

Sorry but no.
In '99 the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, drew up a paper concerning the legal issues of Clinton's PDD 60 policy(new at the time) vs the pledges of negative security assurance to non-nuclear nations. All was in preparation for the 2000 NPT review conference, which you are right, was more or less a flop and why I always refer to the '95 amendments as the binding document. I say binding because of the Lawyers' Committee conclusions, as follows -
www.lcnp.org/disarmament/npt/nato.htm
--The following conclusions are reached:
Negative Security Assurances:
Assurances of non-use against non-nuclear weapon states parties to the NPT and to regional nuclear weapon free zone treaties are legally binding, and this should be formally recognized and affirmed by the nuclear weapon states

The determination of whether a state is in good standing under the NPT and regional treaties and protected by the assurances is a matter for the International Atomic Energy Agency or other authoritative international body and not for the nuclear weapon states

The use of nuclear weapons in reprisal against a chemical or biological attack is barred by the assurances and further could not meet the legal requirements governing reprisals

Preemptive uses of nuclear weapons against chemical or biological weapon capabilities are similarly barred, and the United States should impose its statement that it has no policy of such uses on US armed forces which continue to plan and prepare for such a contingency--

The Lawyers' Committee(LCNP) provides legal information and analysis to policy makers, diplomats, activists, and the media on disarmament and international law. I think they have a lot more data available to them then the both of us, so - I must consider this subject closed. The negative security assurance is legally binding.

I also thought you might like to read a very sobering address on preemptive war, given by the president of LCNP to the Parliamentarians' Network for nuclear Disarmament, Nov.'03 in Vancouver. It explains the dangers of mixing a preemptive attack policy with nuclear weapons. Its very good.
www.lcnp.org/disarmament/nuclearweaponspreventivewar.htm

 

[Ickabod]

OK by me. Either I convert liberals into realists or they leave in a huff when they run out of counter arguments. ;->

Which essentially is the conservative way. Keep sticking to your story, no matter how many facts are presented against it (many of which, i might add, you never addressed in this debate) until the liberals realize they talking to a brick wall and give up.

But I'll give you a lot of credit, you really rolled with the punch over how quickly the US gets into wars. First you said the US always gets into wars quickly. I proved you wrong, then you did a 180 and used that to slam Bush.

So you went from saying that getting into a war quickly is the best way to saying that getting into a war quickly is the worst way, all without breaking a sweat. That's the best liberal quadruple lutz I've ever seen. ;->

Not sure exactly what i said to do that (if anything.....remember what i said about conservatives twisting liberal positions into what they don't really mean so they can scream that Liberals are wrong). But whatever. I will say this though. You've spent the last 3 days defending going after a country that had nothing, zero, zilch to do with anti american terrorism....and 3 days defending not going after a country that had just about everything to do with anti american terrorism. I strongly suspect you'll argue it's ok to go after Iraq because Bush did it. And i suspect if he didn't go after Iraq, you'd argue that was ok too. And since he didn't go after Saudi Arabia, you argue that's ok. But if he did, you'd no doubt argue that's ok too. So discussing anything with you is pretty pointless.

 

[Pete Graves]

You've done an admirable job 90's sc vet, but there's no point. There is a rabid base of American-haters on this board, and they hate Bush more than anyone because he pursues America's interests and resists the malaise of European Socialism.

 

[Ickabod]

You've done an admirable job 90's sc vet, but there's no point. There is a rabid base of American-haters on this board,

LOL. Once again, taking the liberal view, twisting it into something it's not just so you can they the liberal view is wrong. Well ya know what, i think you hate America. American hating conservative!!

and they hate Bush more than anyone because he pursues America's interests and resists the malaise of European Socialism.

Actually, i hate Bush because his policies seem to indicate that he hates me. I don't make $250,000 a year, i don't raise $100,000 for his campaign, and i don't watch 700 Club. Unless you do one of those 3 things, Bush hates you too......you're just too naive to realize it. Face it, Bush is a priveleged elitist.....and i don't know as i've ever seen a priveleged elitist who gave a crap what you or i think.