05-06-2003 18:29									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat So a couple hundred doesn't impress me, sorry.

So it dont impress you. Fine. I'll post it anyway. Some folks need tangible, gut wrenching evidence, not just numbers.

quote: Personally, I don't have a problem with attacking every murdering bastard, so inventing a one-off excuse that we attacked this one because he killed 1,191,603 people (and had oil ), but we couldn't attack this other one because he only killed 1,091,603 people (and didn't have oil ) is IMO just transparent nonsense.

That the problem with rhetoric like "hes a murdering bastard" there are lots of murdering bastards. There are very few genocidal totalitarians. Can you name the ruler who is like Saddam, but only a tad less so? Other than Kim, of course.

quote: Cry me a river. Neither manipulated famines and disasters, nor genocide, is anything new.

Youve just seen it all havent, you. Youre one tough hombre. Too bad you werent around when my great grandfather was murdered outside his village in Poland. Yeah I KNOW genocide is nothing new. All the MORE reason to stay focused on it, if you ask me.

	05-06-2003 18:32									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 Oh well. Guess that would be too much to ask: A honest politician. Didn't really matter. It's a tough call for the liberation of any country as a justification for war. There are a great deal of non-democratic nations in the world, do we invade them all? Still, I'll hold them to their words. The US better fix up Iraq if they want any credibility. The clock ticks.

Wolfie knows that better than anyone else in the admin - including apparently Rummy. Wolfie had damned well BETTER have influence, or we're in deep trouble.

	05-06-2003 18:37									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Why? Wolfie did indeed say if Iraq didn't have oil, sanctions might have worked. So what's wrong with the headline?

wolfie was asked why iraq was different from Nkor. Cause Nkor is vulnerable to sanctions, cause it dont have oil - ergo Guardian "its all about oil"

suppose they had asked how iraq was different from Iran - and he had responded that Iran may change from within, since its not a totalitarian society like Iraq was - would the Guradian have headlined "its all about totalitarianism'????? And how could it be both "all about oil" and "all about totalitarianism"????

If you want to keep spinning for the Guardian, I'll be happy to keep spinning for Wolfie. I guarantee you I'll have the easier task.

	05-06-2003 18:41									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by HershOstropoler Sikander: " As I said, the guardian has been spinning this headline heavily. The average newspaper, not to mention TV news, is miles better than the US media.

Well wrt to the UK, I see only 4 general broadsheet dailies. The Guardian, the Independent, the Daily Telegraph, and the Times. The Independent is as bad as the Guradian. If you mean to say that the Times and the Daily Telegraph are good papers I'd agree, but miles ahead of my fav, the Washington Post, no, definitely not.

	05-06-2003 18:47									#95
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Telegraph is very mixed, incredibly crappy on anything that has to do with europe, in particular. Don't know the Times enough to judge.

The Washington Post is an outstander, still. Vs the Guardian... WP better on the facts, weak on criticism.

	05-06-2003 18:58									#96
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark wolfie was asked why iraq was different from Nkor. Cause Nkor is vulnerable to sanctions, cause it dont have oil - ergo Guardian "its all about oil"

Which part of it is an exaggeration? If Iraq didn't have oil, would the US have invaded?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark suppose they had asked how iraq was different from Iran - and he had responded that Iran may change from within, since its not a totalitarian society like Iraq was - would the Guradian have headlined "its all about totalitarianism'????? And how could it be both "all about oil" and "all about totalitarianism"????

Is that a Strawman that I am looking at?

	05-06-2003 19:09									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Which part of it is an exaggeration? If Iraq didn't have oil, would the US have invaded? Is that a Strawman that I am looking at?

its logic, dude.

	05-06-2003 19:11									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

btw, has onayone noticed the article is no longer available on the Guardian website????

Evidently even they now realize that the headline makes no sense.

	05-06-2003 20:36									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

andy sullivan puts in better than i do


"One reason I find some of the grand-standing over WMDs increasingly preposterous is that it comes from people who really want to avoid the obvious: more and more it's clear that the liberation of Iraq was a moral obligation under any circumstances. People say to this argument that if we depose one dictator for these kinds of abuses, where will we stop? But the truth is: very few dictators have resorted to imprisonment or mass killing of children. Saddam's evil was on a world-historical scale. Ending it was one of the most prgressive things the United States and Britain and their allies have ever done."

	05-06-2003 20:45									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If it's an argument by numbers, get into Kongo and North Korea now.

I don't have a problem with the cop taking out one bad guy, even if 99 still run around. Better 99 than 100.

The problem I have is that I don't trust the cop when he's in bed with about 50 of them, lies that the beams are screaming, and will leave us with more problems than before.

	05-06-2003 20:47									#101
	Increase Your PM Length

And if liberation was the point of this war, why didn't the admin. make that its sole objective from day one. Why didn't the admin., make that it cause, sell it to the Congress that way, and go to the UN and instead of making a PP presentation on WMD's make one on Iraqi HR violations?

And if Liberation was the cause, why aren't we moving against other regimes as we speak? Or attempting to create a system in the world that would do so? Before the war there was only one person in Poly that i can remember that supported the war only for Humanitarian reaons, and that was Laz. A few gave two reasons, most backed it for WMD and terrorism reasons only.

quote: : very few dictators have resorted to imprisonment or mass killing of children. Saddam's evil was on a world-historical scale.

Then "world-historical" scale is sadly common nowadays.

	05-06-2003 21:23									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark btw, has onayone noticed the article is no longer available on the Guardian website???? Evidently even they now realize that the headline makes no sense.

They do.

quote: Correction -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Wolfowitz A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, "The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." The sense was that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

	05-06-2003 21:31									#103
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

and Guardian corrects itself

now this is nice that someone is ready to say that they were wrong, and that the report was misleading:

on their main page today:

quote: CorrectionPaul Wolfowitz A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

-----

as for the hope about honest policians that was too optimistic ... ok at least the world is not going to end tomorrow

	05-06-2003 21:38									#104
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap And if liberation was the point of this war, why didn't the admin. make that its sole objective from day one. Why didn't the admin., make that it cause, sell it to the Congress that way, and go to the UN and instead of making a PP presentation on WMD's make one on Iraqi HR violations? And if Liberation was the cause, why aren't we moving against other regimes as we speak? Or attempting to create a system in the world that would do so? Before the war there was only one person in Poly that i can remember that supported the war only for Humanitarian reaons, and that was Laz. A few gave two reasons, most backed it for WMD and terrorism reasons only. quote: : very few dictators have resorted to imprisonment or mass killing of children. Saddam's evil was on a world-historical scale. Then "world-historical" scale is sadly common nowadays.

there were several reasons to go to war, liberation was one.

I think the admin made a serious mistake in not emphasizing the liberation aspect more. I think there are many elements in the admin that are not comfortable with the neo-Wilsonian aspects of the Wolfie worldview, for a number of reasons. I never said this admin was perfect on foreign pol - it aint.

Why not go elsewhere - well for one with 120,000 troops in iraq, and 9,000 in afghan, and the need to keep a large number in the Pacific in case the Korean situation heats up, we're dangerously close to strategic overstretch.

Nkor is clearly the worst regime left in the world now. unfortunately taking it out would probably mean the destruction of Seoul, S.Korea.

We should push for democratization elsewhere - we are doing that haphazardly, partly due to real constraints, partly due to the ideological confusion of the current admin. We are now in bed with some unsavory central asian states we werent before 9/11. Until we've got things more under control in Afghan i think we're stuck. We have similar dilemmas wrt to Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi.

In any case if we're going to have credibility spreading demo further, we have to first show we can do the job in Iraq. and that job is not done, by any means.

	05-06-2003 21:40									#105
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm amused. Since it turns out that Wolfowitz didn't actually say what some people thought he said, clearly he is lying. Obviously, it doesn't matter one bit what he says or doesn't say.

to the Guardian for the correction.

-Arrian

	05-06-2003 21:43									#106
	credit where credit is due Remove this text

kudos to the guardian for publishing the correction.

No kudos to those here who continued to defend the distortion after it was pointed out.

	05-06-2003 21:54									#107
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark there were several reasons to go to war, liberation was one. I think the admin made a serious mistake in not emphasizing the liberation aspect more. I think there are many elements in the admin that are not comfortable with the neo-Wilsonian aspects of the Wolfie worldview, for a number of reasons. I never said this admin was perfect on foreign pol - it aint.

I agree there were several reasons for the war (and I always stated that oil was not one fo them), but the fact is that by making WMD's the most significant by far basis for this war this admin. was distorting the truth. It was also working to undermine the UN and other international bodies. All those man-power and resource limitations you state are more than enough to show that the Wolfi view that the US ad UK and a few other hanger's on are enough to change the world radically is not very well thought out. It was Wilson who wanted to create a League of nations: undermining the UN and other international bodies is certainly NOT Wilsonian.

The fact is that lying about Iraq's WMD's will undermine trust in the US and its motives (further,as trust is already low), and perhaps also help undermine our efforts in Iraq itself. The means fo trumping up WMD's may very well undermine the very ends the admin. now claims made that means necessary. And the fact is that supporters of the war do themselves a great diservice by ignoring that and spinning it away.

	05-06-2003 22:08									#108
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap I agree there were several reasons for the war (and I always stated that oil was not one fo them), but the fact is that by making WMD's the most significant by far basis for this war this admin. was distorting the truth. It was also working to undermine the UN and other international bodies. All those man-power and resource limitations you state are more than enough to show that the Wolfi view that the US ad UK and a few other hanger's on are enough to change the world radically is not very well thought out. It was Wilson who wanted to create a League of nations: undermining the UN and other international bodies is certainly NOT Wilsonian. The fact is that lying about Iraq's WMD's will undermine trust in the US and its motives (further,as trust is already low), and perhaps also help undermine our efforts in Iraq itself. The means fo trumping up WMD's may very well undermine the very ends the admin. now claims made that means necessary. And the fact is that supporters of the war do themselves a great diservice by ignoring that and spinning it away.

I do see no evidence we lied about WMD. For example there is a brouhaha now about Blairs statement that iraq had weapons ready to launch in 45 minutes. It turns out that intell came from an active iraqi officer "a senior figure" in the regime. Maybe high level folks INSIDE iraq lied to get of hated Saddam. Or maybe it was true, and we will yet see the evidence.

In any case we certainly did not undermine the UN - we acted under UNSC 1441, and there was no minimum quantity under 1441. The bioweapons labs alone, now confirmed, put Saddam in violation of 1441. More will be coming out soon I expect.

In any case, the UN as it has worked out is not a Wilsonian body, it is not a working and active league of democracies. Wilson was a multilateralist, but he was also the UR-democratic peace theorist.

As for the constraints - i said there are constraints to pursuing another war NOW. I did NOT say we're not capable of transforming the Middle East. We ARE doing that in Iraq. We are withdrawing troops from Saudi. We see the beginnings of discussion of reform in Saudi. We see the beginnings of peace process between Israel and the Pals. We see ferment in Iran.

And no, we should not do this with just the US and UK alone. It is good that a UN res was passed on Iraq, that the UN and member states will participate. I do not think that is opposed to Wolfies vision at all. And i think we strongly support what the UN and EU are doing in Congo. Partly due to distortion, partly due to real differences between the Wolfie worldview and the Rummy and Cheney worldviews, the image of US policy is far more unilateralist than Wolfies actual vision.

	05-06-2003 22:16									#109
	Got spare money?

from the financial times

"Whitehall officials in two departments said last night the evidence of the 45-minute capability had come from a serving Iraqi officer with a record for providing reliable data over years. Intelligence sought to find a second source for the information and was unable to do so. However, the JIC was prepared to rely on a single source because the official was a senior figure in Mr Hussein's regime, not a defector. The information was analysed by Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee and immediately distributed to some cabinet ministers at the end of August, a few weeks before the compilation of the government's WMD dossier. Mr Blair remained confident that chemical and biological weapons would be found in Iraq, saying that the Iraq Survey Group - made up of 1,400 UK, US and Australian officials - were only now starting their work. "

	05-06-2003 22:26									#110
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I do see no evidence we lied about WMD. For example there is a brouhaha now about Blairs statement that iraq had weapons ready to launch in 45 minutes. It turns out that intell came from an active iraqi officer "a senior figure" in the regime. Maybe high level folks INSIDE iraq lied to get of hated Saddam. Or maybe it was true, and we will yet see the evidence.

How trusting of you.... as for evidence, it is the high lack of evidence that is the problem for the WMD claims. There werre plenty of high ranking Iraqis wo said they ddin;t have any WMD's ready to launch. Why belive one set and not another? Come on.

quote: In any case we certainly did not undermine the UN - we acted under UNSC 1441, and there was no minimum quantity under 1441. The bioweapons labs alone, now confirmed, put Saddam in violation of 1441. More will be coming out soon I expect.

The bioweapons labs are not confirmed. The trailers found, in thier current form, are not capable of actually producing bioweapons, and no traces of anythign were found. All the CIA claims is that they believe, given what they have seen, that the only plasible explination is that these parts of trailers would be part of bio-weapons labs. Given how much of the CIA''s claims have panned out, heathy skepticism is the word of the day. as for resolution 1441, who's job was it to declare Iraq in breach? unilateral members? If the Us velieved that 1441 was enough, why the whole things about a second resolution? And whay all the declarations that the UN ahd failed afterwards?

quote: As for the constraints - i said there are constraints to pursuing another war NOW. I did NOT say we're not capable of transforming the Middle East. We ARE doing that in Iraq. We are withdrawing troops from Saudi. We see the beginnings of discussion of reform in Saudi. We see the beginnings of peace process between Israel and the Pals. We see ferment in Iran.

We are certainly changing the ME, but for the better or worse, that has yet to be seen, no? The saudis were talking about internal reform in private well before Iraq, Bush could have pushed the Road Map, which was written lat year, without any invasion of Iraq, and forment in Iran has been going on since 1999, well before Iraq. And only if we do well can Iraq really become an excuse for toehrs to act around it.

	05-06-2003 22:46									#111
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap How trusting of you.... as for evidence, it is the high lack of evidence that is the problem for the WMD claims. There werre plenty of high ranking Iraqis wo said they ddin;t have any WMD's ready to launch. Why belive one set and not another? Come on. lotm - difference between public statements and private intell from a reliable source. Come on. quote: In any case we certainly did not undermine the UN - we acted under UNSC 1441, and there was no minimum quantity under 1441. The bioweapons labs alone, now confirmed, put Saddam in violation of 1441. More will be coming out soon I expect. The bioweapons labs are not confirmed. The trailers found, in thier current form, are not capable of actually producing bioweapons, and no traces of anythign were found. All the CIA claims is that they believe, given what they have seen, that the only plasible explination is that these parts of trailers would be part of bio-weapons labs. LOTM - havent heard theyre not capable, merely that no weapons were found. Given how much of the CIA''s claims have panned out, heathy skepticism is the word of the day. as for resolution 1441, who's job was it to declare Iraq in breach? unilateral members? If the Us velieved that 1441 was enough, why the whole things about a second resolution? And whay all the declarations that the UN ahd failed afterwards? the res said there would be serious consequences and DID NOT state that anyone, either blix or the UNSC was required to declare breach. It was assumed that if breach became clear, the UNSC would declare it. It was also, apparently, assumed by France that Saddam would get cold feet and would comply. By issuing a false and inadequate declaration in December, Saddam was clearly in breach, before Blix even set foot in Iraq. at that point the French stopped talking about whether Iraq was in breach, but rather about the best way to deal with it. Thus ignoring the clear language of 1441. quote: As for the constraints - i said there are constraints to pursuing another war NOW. I did NOT say we're not capable of transforming the Middle East. We ARE doing that in Iraq. We are withdrawing troops from Saudi. We see the beginnings of discussion of reform in Saudi. We see the beginnings of peace process between Israel and the Pals. We see ferment in Iran. We are certainly changing the ME, but for the better or worse, that has yet to be seen, no? The saudis were talking about internal reform in private well before Iraq, Bush could have pushed the Road Map, which was written lat year, without any invasion of Iraq, and forment in Iran has been going on since 1999, well before Iraq. And only if we do well can Iraq really become an excuse for toehrs to act around it.

Ive seen quotes indicating much more serious discussions in saudi since the war - dont have the quotes handy, sorry. And i dont think the road map would have gone anywhere before the war - not with the Israelis, certainly, who have always connected their security problem in the west bank with the larger question of the eastern front, and probably not with the pals, who did not put Abu mazen into place till after the war.

However you are correct that really major change depends on how we do in Iraq.

	06-06-2003 09:50									#112
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark I do see no evidence we lied about WMD. For example there is a brouhaha now about Blairs statement that iraq had weapons ready to launch in 45 minutes.

Remember, it's for the NBC camp to show us that they are right, not for us to beat down an unsubstantiated assertion.

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark It turns out that intell came from an active iraqi officer "a senior figure" in the regime. Maybe high level folks INSIDE iraq lied to get of hated Saddam. Or maybe it was true, and we will yet see the evidence.

In one fell swoop, then, this puts all US/UK intelligence into doubt. In fact, this puts the competence of CIA and MI6 into doubt. Failing to double check assertions before presenting them as facts?

Another thing. Before the war, people coming the pro-war faction kept harping on what such-and-such Iraqi detector said. It's time that they eat their own shoes.

	06-06-2003 11:02									#113
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Well it's been very obvious from the beginning that Bush was going to go to war regardless of what Saddam had, claimed, or would do. Ever since the talk of war first started, Bush's tone and his demands made it quite clear that he didn't intend for them to be "satisfied" in time to avert war.

	06-06-2003 11:25									#114
	Got spare money?

Bush should have pushed the terrorism angle.

1) Show the evidence that Saddam supports terrorism. There's plenty - he pays suicide bomber families, had the Achille Lauro guy in his capital, etc.

2) Tell him, "Clean it up or I'll clean you up." Everyone might not have rolled their eyes immediately, since Saddam was a military government, and people might believe he could actually kill terrorists more than they believe he could get rid of weapons he may not have had.

Terrorism was probably the more pressing security threat to America anyway, rather than Saddam's sarin slingshot.