18-03-2003 01:37									#271
	Tired of ads?

There's even more starving North Koreans. And THAT crazy SOB is a hundred times the threat Saddam is.

	18-03-2003 01:40									#272
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned Iraq is about disarming an aggressor worse than Hitler.

This in the same post in which you characterize other's poster's responses as "utter garbage" and "mindless drivel?"

Worse than Hitler? Then how come the US was so hot to assist and support Hussein's war against Iran?

	18-03-2003 01:53									#273
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: And THAT crazy SOB is a hundred times the threat Saddam is.

That's why we shouldn't go after him; the costs of military action are far too high.

	18-03-2003 03:32									#274
	Tired of ads?

It seems that people continue to try the same debating strategies over and over. The divide and conquer routine appears to be the most used in the OT forums. Someone will say "We should go to war because of X". And a long argument will entail about the merit of going to war about "X". The conclusion is that the divie and conqueror would not go to war because of just "X" or he/she provides examples of where we haven't gone to war over "X".

Let's be realistic...This war is not about any single issue. It is the total picture of a regime that has gone against international will and law for over 20 years. Invading neighbors, killing civilians, producing WMD, defying the UN, etc...etc...

There is no other regime like Iraq's. There is no doubt that the world would be better off without it. Few argue that Saddam is a nice guy. There comes a point when the world must draw a line. Do we accept all of these things continuing while we try to keep it at a minimum with "containment" or do we solve the problem?

The answer is: Solve the problem. Th US and over 40 nations of the world will take action this week to do just that.

	18-03-2003 03:38									#275
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: And THAT crazy SOB is a hundred times the threat Saddam is. That's why we shouldn't go after him; the costs of military action are far too high.

Then tell me, since diplomacy obviously failed with Saddam, how it will work with Kim?

The Wolfowitz crowd argues for pre-emption, i.e. attacking before something has a chance to become a larger threat than it is. Is Kim Jong Il becoming a lesser threat?

	18-03-2003 03:38									#276
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The original post in this threat is hilarious now, seeing the developments of the weekend and today .

	18-03-2003 03:41									#277
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Then tell me, since diplomacy obviously failed with Saddam, how it will work with Kim?

Nothing's going to work with Kim. It's best to make it a multilateral problem and let the big boys in East Asia deal with him.

quote: The Wolfowitz crowd argues for pre-emption, i.e. attacking before something has a chance to become a larger threat than it is. Is Kim Jong Il becoming a lesser threat?

Do you think the Wolfowitz crowd is crazy? That's what you would have to be to seriously consider preempting North Korea at this stage of the game...

	18-03-2003 03:48									#278
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Let's be realistic...This war is not about any single issue. It is the total picture of a regime that has gone against international will and law for over 20 years. Invading neighbors, killing civilians, producing WMD, defying the UN, etc...etc...

That could be said (over a longer time frame) about several nations, but defying the UN shouldn't be included in that list, because, as the President tells us, the UN is irrelevant.

quote: There is no other regime like Iraq's. There is no doubt that the world would be better off without it.

Assuming something better takes it's place, and lasts - the history of Iraq, and our great popular backing from the arab world at this juncture doesn't exactly guarantee that outcome.

quote: Few argue that Saddam is a nice guy. There comes a point when the world must draw a line.

So is your point of view that the US and a few of it's followers decide for the world when that time is, or does the US simply act and claim it's doing it for the world?

quote: Do we accept all of these things continuing while we try to keep it at a minimum with "containment" or do we solve the problem?

Containment has worked. Iraq hasn't been able to do **** to anyone for 12 years. And "solving" the problem presumes we don't **** up or lose interest, and leave a bigger problem in our wake.

quote: The US and over 40 nations of the world will take action this week to do just that.

Bullshit. At this point, it's not even clear how many nations (if any) besides the US, UK and Australia will even participate militarily, let alone contribute to the enormous financial costs. A bunch of small countries saying "go get 'em, tiger!" in return for military aid packages is not exactly "taking action." The burden for this one falls right on the US, and more than half the ground combat capability, half the naval aviation assets, and 3/4 of the US Marine Corps' combat capability is being tied up in the process.

	18-03-2003 03:52									#279
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Then tell me, since diplomacy obviously failed with Saddam, how it will work with Kim? Nothing's going to work with Kim. It's best to make it a multilateral problem and let the big boys in East Asia deal with him. quote: The Wolfowitz crowd argues for pre-emption, i.e. attacking before something has a chance to become a larger threat than it is. Is Kim Jong Il becoming a lesser threat? Do you think the Wolfowitz crowd is crazy? That's what you would have to be to seriously consider preempting North Korea at this stage of the game...

At this stage of the game, the DPRK's nuclear production capability could be taken out, and a majority of their DMZ artillery could be taken out preemptively (all of it if we used tactical nukes, but that isn't acceptable). IF he has any warheads, there's no evidence they are attached to or deployable to any specific long range missile launcher.

Give Kim a year or two, and he'll be able to hit LA.

The DPRK is only going to get stronger unless they choose to back down.

	18-03-2003 03:57									#280
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Containment has worked.

That's the weakness in your argument. We just don't know if it has worked. And losing interest in containment, such as the French and Russians have done, makes the continuation of containment damned near impossible.

	18-03-2003 03:59									#281
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: IF he has any warheads, there's no evidence they are attached to or deployable to any specific long range missile launcher.

Are you really willing to take that chance? At any rate, he doesn't need a long range missile launcher to turn Seoul to glass...

	18-03-2003 04:04									#282
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DanS Containment has worked. That's the weakness in your argument. We just don't know if it has worked.

Despite his internal thuggery, Saddam's really only been a bad boy once. That little tiff with Iran was Iran's fault (assassinations and trying to start a revolt really piss of most countries), and the US, UK and Arab world agreed.

We do know that since the invasion of Kuwait and Saddam's ass thumping, his military is still weaker than it was pre-invasion, his neighbors are stronger, and he hasn't tried to invade anyone, or even postured very hard about it.

Saddam had the opportunity to hit Israel with WMD's the first time around, but he didn't. He tried to get an Israeli response to drive a wedge in the arab coalition against him, it didn't work, but he wasn't crazy enough to launch a chemical warhead against Israel, because he could figure the consequences.

Saddamn is trained in the Soviet mold, and we held those bastards in check for decades, until they imploded. There's no evidence the same thing won't work here, with lower cost.

Saying "we don't know if it's worked" is really carte blanche to invade anyone - we don't know if they're a future threat.

	18-03-2003 04:06									#283
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: IF he has any warheads, there's no evidence they are attached to or deployable to any specific long range missile launcher. Are you really willing to take that chance? At any rate, he doesn't need a long range missile launcher to turn Seoul to glass...

Seoul could be turned to glass without nukes.

And if Kim is going to develop longer range missiles, and try nuclear blackmail against the US (a distinct possibility if he's afraid to back down), then giving him more time to develop long range missile technology isn't in our favor.

They're processing Uranium at Yongbyon now. How many more warheads will Kim have next year?

	18-03-2003 04:11									#284
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

North Korea scares the **** out of me, MtG, but there really isn't anything we can do about it now. We ****ed up and let them acquire nukes. Game over. We're just going to have to learn to live with a nuclear North Korea, preferably by handing responsibility for the whole mess over to the Chinese, Japanese, and South Koreans and getting the hell out of that tinderbox...

	18-03-2003 04:26									#285
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Two years or so, and he'll be able to deliver those warheads to LA, maybe to the entire US, unless we find a way to derail him.

	18-03-2003 04:34									#286
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Saying "we don't know if it's worked" is really carte blanche to invade anyone - we don't know if they're a future threat.

Well, it's reality.

	18-03-2003 04:36									#287
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Two years or so, and he'll be able to deliver those warheads to LA, maybe to the entire US, unless we find a way to derail him.

No ****. But how are you going to stop him? Give me one palatable way of stopping them...

	18-03-2003 04:38									#288
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Despite his internal thuggery, Saddam's really only been a bad boy once. That little tiff with Iran was Iran's fault (assassinations and trying to start a revolt really piss of most countries), and the US, UK and Arab world agreed. We do know that since the invasion of Kuwait and Saddam's ass thumping, his military is still weaker than it was pre-invasion, his neighbors are stronger, and he hasn't tried to invade anyone, or even postured very hard about it. Saddam had the opportunity to hit Israel with WMD's the first time around, but he didn't. He tried to get an Israeli response to drive a wedge in the arab coalition against him, it didn't work, but he wasn't crazy enough to launch a chemical warhead against Israel, because he could figure the consequences. Saddamn is trained in the Soviet mold, and we held those bastards in check for decades, until they imploded. There's no evidence the same thing won't work here, with lower cost. Saying "we don't know if it's worked" is really carte blanche to invade anyone - we don't know if they're a future threat.

Despite his internal thuggery, Saddam's really only been a bad boy once.

Yeah, despite mass murder internally, he has only really tried mass murder internationally once. This is a justification to leave him in power?



and he hasn't tried to invade anyone, or even postured very hard about it.

Not True! He has since started to mass troops on the Kuwati boarder and only a quick response of US troop movements stopped him.

There's no evidence the same thing won't work here, with lower cost.

Lower Cost? How much do you think that the world has spent on "containing" Saddam during the last 12 years? Also, the fact that he has been "contained" is dubious. When his son in law that defected detailed his bio and chem programs I would doubt that anyone felt that he was "contained"

	18-03-2003 04:45									#289
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Bullshit. At this point, it's not even clear how many nations (if any) besides the US, UK and Australia will even participate militarily, let alone contribute to the enormous financial costs. A bunch of small countries saying "go get 'em, tiger!" in return for military aid packages is not exactly "taking action." The burden for this one falls right on the US, and more than half the ground combat capability, half the naval aviation assets, and 3/4 of the US Marine Corps' combat capability is being tied up in the process.

True that the bulk of the burden militarily falls to the US, but so what? We are the only ones capable of projecting that force. Additionally, are you stating that all these countries that are supporting action would be against it if not for US aid? Is Saddam that great a guy? It is much more probable that there are many like minded leaders to the US position than the "keep Saddam in power" crowd would like to admit.

	18-03-2003 05:08									#290
	Inflate your Upload Space

If the US wasn't the driver for it, I suspect almost all of them (except the UK) wouldn't care very much at all. For most countries in the world, other than in the ME, Iraq and Hussein are a pretty low policy priority.

It's not that Saddam's a nice guy, or has many friends, it's that most countries have bigger fish to fry closer to home, whether in domestic policy or foreign policy.

The Macchiavellian in me suspects strongly that most of these countries read that the US was going to act regardless, and they had nothing to gain and perhaps something to lose, by not supporting the US position, and something to gain by supporting the US position. I'm sure most of these nations see the issue vis-a-vis their relations with the US far more than they see it as the proximity of the Iraqi threat to themselves.

	18-03-2003 05:14									#291
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat If the US wasn't the driver for it, I suspect almost all of them (except the UK) wouldn't care very much at all. For most countries in the world, other than in the ME, Iraq and Hussein are a pretty low policy priority. It's not that Saddam's a nice guy, or has many friends, it's that most countries have bigger fish to fry closer to home, whether in domestic policy or foreign policy. The Macchiavellian in me suspects strongly that most of these countries read that the US was going to act regardless, and they had nothing to gain and perhaps something to lose, by not supporting the US position, and something to gain by supporting the US position. I'm sure most of these nations see the issue vis-a-vis their relations with the US far more than they see it as the proximity of the Iraqi threat to themselves.

While you are probably correct in some instances, I believe that many countries have leaders of principal. They believe that this is the right thing to do. Do they have bigger fish closer to home? Almost certainly. Does that make this any less of a principaled decision? Probably not. I would also put forth that some want a precedant set that would apply in their neighborhood should an Iraqi type regime emerge.

	18-03-2003 05:17									#292
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

bahahahaha... yah war!

	18-03-2003 05:18									#293
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 Despite his internal thuggery, Saddam's really only been a bad boy once. Yeah, despite mass murder internally, he has only really tried mass murder internationally once. This is a justification to leave him in power?

Normally, we don't get worked about mass murder - we didn't in Rwanda, we didn't in Iraq at the time we were supporting Hussein. How much noise was made about Halabja at the time it happened, and by whom?

quote: and he hasn't tried to invade anyone, or even postured very hard about it. Not True! He has since started to mass troops on the Kuwati boarder and only a quick response of US troop movements stopped him.

This is why I said "very hard." During the cold war, the US and USSR tested each other directly and through proxies numerous times on land, sea and air.

quote: There's no evidence the same thing won't work here, with lower cost. Lower Cost? How much do you think that the world has spent on "containing" Saddam during the last 12 years? Also, the fact that he has been "contained" is dubious. When his son in law that defected detailed his bio and chem programs I would doubt that anyone felt that he was "contained"

Not counting the gulf war itself, quite a bit less than the current global economic impact from the run up of oil prices on the global market as this conflict has developed, and certainly less than the 100 billion or so pricetag estimated for this one.

As to defectors, intelligence agencies have traditionally had a jaded view of info provided by them, because defectors tend to need to make themselves valuable.

I have no doubt Hussein has significant BCW programs even now - as do a lot of other nations. IMO, containment means deterring him from using them externally, or from attacking his neighbors. Beyond that, he's a regional problem, not a global one, and not one with a big enough impact on US security to bother with at this time, with this economy, with this level of military force available, and with other threats that require our attention and resources.

	18-03-2003 05:22									#294
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 While you are probably correct in some instances, I believe that many countries have leaders of principal. They believe that this is the right thing to do. Do they have bigger fish closer to home? Almost certainly. Does that make this any less of a principaled decision? Probably not. I would also put forth that some want a precedant set that would apply in their neighborhood should an Iraqi type regime emerge.

The only principle I believe exists in national leaders and foreign ministers is the principal of perceived self-interest. Most anything can be sold, or sold out, or bought off, if there is a perceived advantage for it. Sometimes that self-interest is national, sometimes it is as simple as getting re-elected or creating a legacy. Actually doing things on the basis of higher principles? I expect that most countries' political systems weed out such types before they get to national office.

	18-03-2003 05:59									#295
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Why don't we ever see more Democrats like you, MtG? It might actually make for an interesting election if people of your ilk were in the Dem. primary

	18-03-2003 06:32									#296
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Because I'm out on a listening post about 100 meters past the far right flank of the Democratic Party, as it's currently constituted.

Somehow, touchy-feeliness got to be all in fashion in the local party organizations, so the only chance in hell I'd have of running successfully anywhere would be back in Kentucky or Virginia.

Trouble is, to run from there, I'd have to move there, and even if I ran for anything and won, being a centrist southern Democrat is really a pretty isolated political position nowadays.

Bush is actually about the only thing right now that keeps me from considering switching party affiliation, unless the Dems really pull off some sort of miracle and transform themselves as a party.

	18-03-2003 06:35									#297
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Bush is actually about the only thing right now that keeps me from considering switching party affiliation,

Never thought that I'd hear those words come from a "Blue Dog" Democrat such as yourself.

How would you rate Zell Miller?

	18-03-2003 06:58									#298
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Overall, favorably, but I differ with some of his positions (though not that many or that much) on security and on his support of the Iraq war.

I do think it is refreshing though, to see an actual live southern Democrat - they're somewhat of an endangered species.

Besides, I only said "considering switching"

	18-03-2003 06:59									#299
	To bring it all full circle... Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Did we score a victory?

No.

quote: So, Bush has had to back off his plans of imminent invasion in order to save the political career of his ally, Blair. Score one for the good guys. Democracy in action, yahoo! So, now we need to go into overdrive. We've made them falter, now we have to knock them out.

	18-03-2003 07:05									#300
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Because I'm out on a listening post about 100 meters past the far right flank of the Democratic Party, as it's currently constituted. Somehow, touchy-feeliness got to be all in fashion in the local party organizations, so the only chance in hell I'd have of running successfully anywhere would be back in Kentucky or Virginia. Trouble is, to run from there, I'd have to move there, and even if I ran for anything and won, being a centrist southern Democrat is really a pretty isolated political position nowadays. Bush is actually about the only thing right now that keeps me from considering switching party affiliation, unless the Dems really pull off some sort of miracle and transform themselves as a party.

I have been an independant for many years. I cannot stand either party. I think the Republicans have hijacked the conservative label and they certainly do not represent my view of a conservative form of government. As for the Democrats, I'd sooner be dead than join their clan.