01-02-2003 16:24									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel How about a mole in the inspection team itself?

hi ,

some regards considering that ;

there could be many , instead of one , ....

communications , are they secure

maybe there is a mole or two outside the team , .....

what about the cleaners of the clothes , offices , etc , .....

eavesdropping , etc , .....

have a nice day

	01-02-2003 18:00									#92
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sandman, you're on to something. I think it's this guy:

Attachment: rummyandpal.jpg
This has been downloaded 54 time(s).

	01-02-2003 18:47									#93
	Increase the size of your Attachments

If the secret police raid Rumsfeld's home I'm sure they'll find prayer mats, copies of the Qu'ran and secret terrorist documents.

And if they don't find anything, that's just proof that he's hiding something.

I can't wait for the show trials to begin.

	02-02-2003 00:58									#94
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned The mole is in the US state department!

[old cynical bastard]
The US is secretly supplying the info to the Iraqis so that they will know where to clean up. Then the US can claim Iraq isn't complying. It's brialliant.
[/old cynical bastard]

	02-02-2003 04:25									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Saw something very funny last night:

On Hardball Chris Matthews is tsalking to the chief editor of Human Events (a conservative paper) among other about the admin. stating that it weill not rule out the use of nukes v. Iraq if Iraq uses WMD against US forces, Chris questioned such a stance, and he asked the editor is the admin. does not believe the theory of deterrence works anymore, then what is the point of making the statement to try to deter Iraq from using WMD agaisnt out troops...

Watching the editor of Human events deal with that Oh sovery simple question was so much fun.

So the questiong oes out to all of yah who back the invasion:

If detering Iraq is impossible, then do you hold the probability of Iraq using WMD against our troops, or giving WMD to Terrorist after we invade to be a statistical certainty, or just extremely high, given that nothing could possibly deter Saddam the madman from using them?

	02-02-2003 06:28									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

GePap, I think he will give the order. I am 50-50 on whether it will be carried out given that Bush has promised to execute anyone who does - implying some kind of hero status for defying Saddam.

	02-02-2003 08:28									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Bush promised to try those who carried attacks as war criminals, but under what authority would he? Create an international panel? US military authority? Nah, Saddam would most likely trust only the most loyal of his forces with such weapons, and also those he could most likely kill if they refused. After all, soldiers always follow orders....

	02-02-2003 11:28									#98
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GePap Bush promised to try those who carried attacks as war criminals, but under what authority would he? Create an international panel? US military authority? Nah, Saddam would most likely trust only the most loyal of his forces with such weapons, and also those he could most likely kill if they refused. After all, soldiers always follow orders....

I know that if I am such a general, I carry out the WoMD attack because I know that if I do not, I am dead meat.

In other words, I fear Saddam much more than I fear Bush.

	02-02-2003 13:16									#99
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: DinoDoc, et al., our policy in Europe was that an attack on Europe was an attack on the US. Our doctrine called for massive retailation - which probably meant progressive retaliation until the Soviets surrendered.

actually the first SIOP called for a massive nuclear responce to any attack. russia nukes Paris, then we nuke everything from Warsaw to Moscow to Beijing, if it's red it's dead

i think the article makes some intelligent points, and i think that containment can work, but maybe isn't the most optimal strategy to use

quote: Che, again, let us stick to the facts. The article calls for US containment of Iraq in the ME. If he nukes Teheran, do we nuke Baghdad? That is the question on the table.

Ned to answer your question, i think that since Iraq is a dictatorship, we can deter iraq without threatening to destroy the nation, but instead threatening to destroy the leadership is the best way to deter them, and we can destroy the leadership through conventional means

in fact i think we could destroy half of the iraqi population with WoMD, and if it doesn't destroy the leadership it wouldn't deter iraq

i think a good question is which would better serve america's long term goals? deterence or disarmament

i honestly don't know which is the right answer

	02-02-2003 14:58									#100
	tangents and stuff Increase Your PM Length

sidenote: Iraq is officially a REPUBLIC, Source: Goode's World Atlas (it has everything)

other note: The Kurds in the North will never have their own political nation because Turkey hates Kurds and will war with any Kurd nation and their allies.

Iraq's current regime's main goal is to destroy Isreal (massacre, pillage, make all Jews non-existent). They are our allies, we cannot just abandon them.
What if France's main goal was to wipe out Germany? Most likely there would be a war involving most of Europe... again.

Extreme point of view: The EU is tired of being bullied by the Western agenda (US, Britain, Australia, etc.). If the EU had their way every nation of Africa and Asia (except Japan and South Korea) would be members. They want nothing more than the power to exert their agenda over us. They have been working on pacts with China and are attempting to reassert themselves in Africa (which is important 40 years down the road). The EU cares only for its best interest and will hate anything America does to improve its econmoic preformance or political power. Taking Iraq would mean economic power, marketshare, and a future potential ally. Oil is just an added bonus we would receive as a spoils of war. Our main gains would be made in economic power, political power, and the acquisition of a strategic point to place troops in.
For a good example of how the world treats the US, Iraq is now the chairman of the UN Cnnference on disarmerment.
To be fair we cannot blame just one President for their world agenda.

Oh, I am against the war, but if there will be war, let it be now. Biological weapons are most effective in the summertime...

	02-02-2003 15:00									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

(edit)


"Iraq's current regime's main goal is to destroy Isreal (massacre, pillage, make all Jews non-existent). They are our allies, we cannot just abandon them."

they are our allies= Isreal

sorry for poor sentence structure

	02-02-2003 19:07									#102
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Iraq's current regime's main goal is to destroy Isreal (massacre, pillage, make all Jews non-existent).

Rrrright.

	02-02-2003 19:09									#103
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: The EU cares only for its best interest and will hate anything America does to improve its econmoic preformance or political power.

Fear towards United States is rising on the every side of the globe, or so it seems.

	02-02-2003 19:23									#104
	Support Apolyton

quote: The EU is tired of being bullied by the Western agenda

	03-02-2003 00:09									#105
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by korn469 Ned to answer your question, i think that since Iraq is a dictatorship, we can deter iraq without threatening to destroy the nation, but instead threatening to destroy the leadership is the best way to deter them, and we can destroy the leadership through conventional means in fact i think we could destroy half of the Iraqi population with WoMD, and if it doesn't destroy the leadership it wouldn't deter Iraq i think a good question is which would better serve america's long term goals? deterence or disarmament i honestly don't know which is the right answer

I agree with this. But the assumption of the article is a version of MAD. The article assumes that our own (meaning UN?) threats to use WoMD against Iraq deter Saddam because he has been acting rationally.

I do not agree that he has been acting rationally – at least if he has all the information we think he has when he makes a decision. But, since he is a ruthless, murdering, torturing dictator, he may not be getting bad news or proper risk assessments.

If he absolutely knew that the use of nuclear weapons would bring a certain and immediate end to his regime, then he might be deterred.

But given the farce of the last 12 years, a rational man would not be deterred by UN threats of massive retaliation – particularly if the feckless Europeans had anything to do with the decision to retaliate.

	03-02-2003 00:35									#106
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ned I do not agree that he has been acting rationally

Based on what evidence?

	03-02-2003 01:29									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Based on what evidence?

I think if he had conducted a proper risk assessment, he would have realized that he could not conquer Iran and that Iran would not quitely given him the strip of territory he wanted. The long bloody war that resulted was quite forseeable.

As to Kuwait, while he may have calculated correctly that the US would not intervene, he certainly underestimated the Saudi's and their influence on the US.

So, if he had the risk assessments before him and proceeded, he was not acting rationally. But I also think it is highly likely that he was not getting the right intelligence or risk assessments. Worse, if he proceeded without risk assessments - well he truly is irrational.

But the net result is the same whether he is irrational or whether he is not getting the right information.

But he clearly is a gambler and is willing to undertake a lot of risk. Witness his current gamble on defying the weapons inspectors. We can expect more of the same from him in the future if somehow he survives current events.

	03-02-2003 01:57									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Contaiment could probably work, but I dunno if its the best solution. Rather than having a thorn in our side for God knows how long, wouldnt it be wiser to remove the thorn bush before it can grow into our side? I dunno.

I know its an entirely differet situation and scope, but I just cant help thinking if we coulda taken out the SU (if we would have known about the Cold War) just after Germany and Japan, and before they developed their first nuke, then that would have saved us a whole lot of trouble (tho taking on the SU wouldnt have been anywhere near as simple for the US and her allies as taking on Iraq... im aware of this, and other flaws... just cant help but thinking about this tho). It is quite debatable however on what the best approach is. I dont know if it is really wise at this point to take a staunch position for either side (contaiment or regime change), as both have their theoretical and speculatory advantages and disadvantages.

Kman

	03-02-2003 03:17									#109
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned I think if he had conducted a proper risk assessment, he would have realized that he could not conquer Iran and that Iran would not quitely given him the strip of territory he wanted.

Given the turmoil in Iran, it was not unreasonable to think that the country could be knocked out quickly.

quote: As to Kuwait, while he may have calculated correctly that the US would not intervene, he certainly underestimated the Saudi's and their influence on the US.

Given that it was the US who pressured the Saudis and not the other way around, he had no reason to expect an American intervention. The Saudis were the ones who wanted to appease Hussein, not confront him.

	03-02-2003 05:02									#110
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ned But he clearly is a gambler and is willing to undertake a lot of risk. Witness his current gamble on defying the weapons inspectors. We can expect more of the same from him in the future if somehow he survives current events.

There are more obvious reasons for his current behaviour. These are:

(1) that he has good reason to believe that the US will attack no matter what he does.

(2) That he has good reason to think that the UN inspections are de facto intelligence gathering exercises or have been inflitrated by US intelligence.

(3) He needs WMD's as a deterrent to external (read: Iran) and internal (read: Shias and Kurds) threats.

From these:

(C) He wants to preserve as much weaponry as secretly as he can so that in the event of a likely invasion he has something to fight with or in the event of no invasion to preserve his own regime. After all, if the inspectors have a free hand to go where they want in Iraq it makes them the perfect intelligence gathering device for the US.

All in all it is a reasonable gamble given the situation.

He's been put between a rock and a hard place since he cannot be sure that compliance with the UN will lead to the survival of his regime, so he must invoke a duplicitous strategy.

	03-02-2003 06:02									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

remove the thorn cause an infection...

	03-02-2003 09:18									#112
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

This isn't as good (the man argues atrociously IMHO) but it does attempt to address the original argument.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...02/162kkofc.asp

	03-02-2003 10:09									#113
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: Originally posted by Ned I think if he had conducted a proper risk assessment, he would have realized that he could not conquer Iran and that Iran would not quitely given him the strip of territory he wanted. Given the turmoil in Iran, it was not unreasonable to think that the country could be knocked out quickly. quote: As to Kuwait, while he may have calculated correctly that the US would not intervene, he certainly underestimated the Saudi's and their influence on the US. Given that it was the US who pressured the Saudis and not the other way around, he had no reason to expect an American intervention. The Saudis were the ones who wanted to appease Hussein, not confront him.

Che, one of these days, I would like to welcome you as you move in from the dark side.

Why do you consistently ignore or deny history? The US did in fact say to Saddam that he could invade Kuwait with impunity. It was the Saudi's that caused that decision to be reversed.

If you really disagree with this, please cite diplomatic communique's to the contrary.

	03-02-2003 10:10									#114
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Agathon There are more obvious reasons for his current behaviour. These are: (1) that he has good reason to believe that the US will attack no matter what he does. (2) That he has good reason to think that the UN inspections are de facto intelligence gathering exercises or have been inflitrated by US intelligence. (3) He needs WMD's as a deterrent to external (read: Iran) and internal (read: Shias and Kurds) threats. From these: (C) He wants to preserve as much weaponry as secretly as he can so that in the event of a likely invasion he has something to fight with or in the event of no invasion to preserve his own regime. After all, if the inspectors have a free hand to go where they want in Iraq it makes them the perfect intelligence gathering device for the US. All in all it is a reasonable gamble given the situation. He's been put between a rock and a hard place since he cannot be sure that compliance with the UN will lead to the survival of his regime, so he must invoke a duplicitous strategy.

Reasonable.

I think he is sliding down the edge of a razor. No mater which direction his body falls, he is dead.

	03-02-2003 10:33									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ned Reasonable. I think he is sliding down the edge of a razor. No mater which direction his body falls, he is dead.

It's not him I'm worried about. The average Iraqui isn't much different than you or I. Try imagining what it would be like trying to calm your neighbour down if their daughter had just been immolated by a fuel/air bomb.

It's just ugly.

	03-02-2003 10:50									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Agathon It's not him I'm worried about. The average Iraqui isn't much different than you or I. Try imagining what it would be like trying to calm your neighbour down if their daughter had just been immolated by a fuel/air bomb. It's just ugly.

Agathon, We are not going to immolate civilians. That is what we are trying to prevent.

If you truly are in favor of human rights, of safety and security for families to raise their kids in peace, you will switch sides on this issue. Saddam is the killer. Unless he is removed, he will continue to kill.

(To me, it is simply unimaginable to have a ruler who is a murderer. But that is what Saddam is.)

	03-02-2003 12:12									#117
	Increase the size of your Attachments

EDIT: too sarcastic... I felt bad about it