DrGONZO - 27 January 2006 06:14 PM

LOL - yeah , ignorant and proud of it, the south park conservative way , ... :rolleyes:

I wouldn’t consider you a Southpark conservative – probably more of a Nader liberal.

If bounties worked Ben Laden wouldn’t be at large would he ? A fatwa is not a bounty, the fatwa against Rushdie was because his book insulted islam (which turns out to be false when you read the book), so every muslim supposedly had to kill Rushdie. Can’t say the same for them.

Yeah, and that seems to have worked real well too.  But whether you want to call it a bounty or a fatwa, the result is still folks calling for you murder and seeing as how these pilots were from Saddam’s Iraq, they probably have a bit more confidence in death squads then most westerners do.  Heck, you’re French – ask an Algerian how much confidence he has in a death squad catching up with someone.

I’m trying to be precise, which is more than you ever did.

That’s because we both know that we don’t know who might call for or carry out a hit on those two.  So you’re attempting to distract from the point by nit-picking typos and demanding specifics, knowing that there’s no way in hell I have any clue who’d specifically be sent to deal with those two.

Anyway you’ll say further in the post that you think the testimonies would be no use. How does not contacting the US protect the pilots? On the contrary, they are more likely to be killed now than if they asked for US protection.

The pilots themselves aren’t the issue – it’s their families and villages.  We’ve already seen how the Democrats and the media love leaking US intelligence secrets, so imagine those idiots leaking that Mohamad and Jubar of the village of Camel Hump in central Iraq were the pilots talking to the CIA about Saddam’s WMDs.  Suddenly the insurgency starts shredding that village and then the usual idiots act surprised.

And you never called the press saying you knew where the antrax came from ?

I never shipped any packages from “person mailing anthrax” to “whomever received it” – otherwise, I’d of testified by now.

Of course, I’m sure that if Saddam went through the trouble of stripping out some civilian passenger planes and then had the Republican Guard put a bunch of drums with poison symbles on them to fly to Syria that it was actually just him trying to get his mustache comb collection out of the country before it got destroyed by an American bomb or something. :roll:

His party ? Unless you assume that Bushis only concerned about his own interests ?

Nah – the whole Iraq thing was already been taken off of the plate for 2006 when the Republicans put the vote to Congress and the Democrats all voted against themselves.  The DNC ace in the hole for the elections this November will be that lobbiest scandle.

Yeah, the Domino effect (tm) :Al Sadr, Hamas , Ahmadinejad, Syria blowing the shit out of Lebanon, SA pairing with China ,good work ...

Yeah, Syria backing out of Lebanon, Lybia giving up terrorism, people demonstrating in Iran for democracy, Saudi Arabia being forced to have elections for local positions – no sign of it working at all. :roll:

DrGONZO - 28 January 2006 06:36 AM

Just like it makes great sense to send your best weapons to your historic enemy when you are about to be invaded. Good point. Keep up the good work, dude…

Yeah, like Saddam would never send his weapons to historic enemies to keep them out of US hands.  I remember how back in the Gulf War he didn’t send his airforce to Iran too.  So you’re right, there’s NO precedent for Saddam doing anything like that. :roll:

DrGONZO - 29 January 2006 11:38 AM

Saddam was a dangerous murderer who was dead set to kill all americans infidels, for sure,

Actually, Saddam was secular – recall that this is the guy who had a copy of the Koran penned in human blood for shits and giggles.

No, Saddam was simply a megalomaniac – he supported the terrorists because they hurt his enemies and by becoming their sugar daddy, ensured that they wouldn’t attack him.

but when about to have the occasion to have several thousands of american on the home field and a bunch of extremely dangerous chemical weapons at his disposition he decides to send those weapons somewhere else because he feels like having GWB look like a dick is a far better punishment for being an infidel ? Yeah whatever you like to hear ...

Recall that during the first war, the reason why he didn’t hit us with any WMD attacks is because Bush Sr told him that we’d retaliate against his home village first.

There’s also the issue of Saddam thinking that his buddies in the UN – France, Russia, Germany and China – would be able to stop the liberation at the last second, at which point he’d pretend to play nice, show everyone the empty storage and production facilities and “prove” that Bush was about to remove him from power for no good reason.

At that point, France and the others lift the sanctions and get to enjoy all of those cherry oil deals that Saddam set up with them.

The problem was that Saddam thought that Bush Jr was going to do like Sr did and actually listen when the UN and the Democrats screamed “Wait, stop!” and not go into Iraq.

CM - 30 January 2006 07:42 AM

Even if we assume the ‘WMD’s smuggled to Syria story’ to be true (and surely we need more evidence first) it doesn’t retrospectively provide the international authority to invade.

Premo post CM – woot!

However, this isn’t a big deal because it “retroactively” justifies the liberation of Iraq.

As things currently stand, the main argument the Left has against Iraq is “There weren’t any WMDs!” Whenever you bring up the mass graves, the rape/torture chambers, the 3 million dead, etc, the Left simply ignores those things and responds “But Bush said we were invading over WMDs and he lied!” So if it can finally be proven once and for all that Saddam was the one who was lying about WMDs, then that last, flimsy justification for leaving Saddam in power becomes moot.

Of course, that won’t stop the Left from trying to spin a new reason why it was a bad thing to bring democracy and freedom to the ME, but the public will simply ignore those idiots at that point.

But as for the proper procedure part, the problem is that the procedure was broken thanks to Saddam bribing key members and their countries.

So America was forced to use plan B – fuck the UN.  That’s the same reason why the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment – because if Bush decides to declare an emergency and call off the election and try to make himself president for life, the American people have a plan B to deal with that too.

CM - 30 January 2006 10:06 AM

But the US clearly didn’t have a problem with buy-offs, as it was trying to buy SC member votes.

Really – and who were we buying off and how (source other then LaRouche)?

Even then, there were still countries not profiting from a no-war situation within the SC that had not been convinced.

America and the UK (and even then, it turns out that members of the opposition party were being bought) weren’t being bought off and we approved liberating Iraq – France, China and Russia, the other three members that could approve or veto liberating Iraq were being bought off – who’s left?

As for the claims by some liberal think tank that the US was paying off or bullying other nations, yet again, that’s just the left doing a bit of projection.  Recall that it was France that was threatening to block different nation’s membership to the EU if they sided with the US.

w0rf - 30 January 2006 01:14 PM

CM - 30 January 2006 01:09 PM

What specifically is false, or what do you disagree with then ?

Well, for starters, per their own report:

Throughout February, France, with long-standing ties to both Cameroon and Guinea, appeared to
attempt to beat Washington’s offers of new economic and military aid. But the overarching reach
of U.S. influence, in the diplomatic, military, and economic areas, make Paris unlikely to be able
to out-bid the United States.

So is this coercion or a bidding war?  If France had the moral authority why are THEY trying to buy USNC votes?.

The US would ALWAYS win a bidding war. They can usually not only make more of an offer, but take away substantially more. Why is that incorrect ?
And if the study is so partisan left-wing, why did they even mention the French ‘bidding’ ?
Even ignoring that, the French government actually went to the UN on the same side of their population. Even if coincidental, they were acting in a democratic manner. And most of the world agreed that the US (lack of) evidence wasn’t sufficient.

That was ‘for starters’. What else ?
Here is the report
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/COERCED.pdf

And how is this not meddling in the politics of other countries ?

Some U.S. lawmakers, including House Leader Dennis Hastert, have vowed to propose
trade sanctions on French wine and water. France is by far the largest source of U.S. wine
imports, with nearly $830 million worth in 2001.

w0rf - 30 January 2006 01:14 PM

Beyond that, all I see is circumstantial evidence.  Perfect fodder for tinfoil theories.

Oh ok this is one of times where MORE than circumstantial evidence is required ? It’s difficult to keep up with what is exempt and what isn’t. Good timing though as Deus posted the real rules just before so I can check.........

The US would ALWAYS win a bidding war. They can usually not only make more of an offer, but take away substantially more. Why is that incorrect ?
And if the study is so partisan left-wing, why did they even mention the French ‘bidding’ ?

For starters, it assumed no wrong-doing or strong-arming on the part of the French.  Also, I am not convinced by “vowing” to “propose” something which as you can plainly see had absolutely no substance in Congress.  Any boycott of French product took place at the behest of angry Americans, who I would remind you also thought boycotting french toast and french fries would have an impact on their economy.

Even ignoring that, the French government actually went to the UN on the same side of their population. Even if coincidental, they were acting in a democratic manner. And most of the world agreed that the US (lack of) evidence wasn’t sufficient.

Most of the world HAD the same evidence and refused to ACT on it, even as he kicked inspectors OUT of his country.

Oh ok this is one of times where MORE than circumstantial evidence is required ? It’s difficult to keep up with what is exempt and what isn’t.

If there’s an accusation buried under your sarcasm, just say it to my face.

Really – and who were we buying off and how (source other then LaRouche)?

Speaking of which, I see you are ignoring anything about ‘missing’ reconstruction money today, particularly my links in the Hangout section.

Premo post CM – woot!

How’s that superiority complex today ? Seems to be in fine form. Don’t forgot to constantly throw LOL’s out there to help prop up your arguments.

However, this isn’t a big deal because it “retroactively” justifies the liberation of Iraq.

It obviously does to you. But slightly more crucially, it doesn’t remove the fact that the US were unable to make the case and didn’t get UN authorisation.

As things currently stand, the main argument the Left has against Iraq is “There weren’t any WMDs!”

No, I’d say the left have many arguments, and one of the big ones is that the UN didn’t authorise the invasion because the US couldn’t make the case. The majority of the world wasn’t convinced, and they didn’t profit from it (or even know of the oli-for-food fiasco).

Whenever you bring up the mass graves, the rape/torture chambers, the 3 million dead, etc, the Left simply ignores those things and responds “But Bush said we were invading over WMDs and he lied!”

WMD was the case that the US presented to the UN. I’m sorry to hear that you’d like to go back and time and alter it.

So if it can finally be proven once and for all that Saddam was the one who was lying about WMDs, then that last, flimsy justification for leaving Saddam in power becomes moot.

It certainly would help with the serious credibility problem if they were found, or evidence was uncovered to show where they went. But it wouldn’t change the fact that the US ignored agreed procedures after failing to make the case.

Of course, that won’t stop the Left from trying to spin a new reason why it was a bad thing to bring democracy and freedom to the ME, but the public will simply ignore those idiots at that point.

I’m still waiting on those (democracy and freedom) to be proven. I realise that you thought they already had a democratic government years ago (you tried to argue in another thread that their democratic government signed deals with the IMF/World Bank, and when I pointed out you were wrong, you didn’t post again).

But as for the proper procedure part, the problem is that the procedure was broken thanks to Saddam bribing key members and their countries.

Nice try but
(a) two wrongs don’t justify a right,
(b) the ends don’t justify the means, and
(c) we didn’t know that at the time (revisionist specialist that you are).

Both were wrong and in both cases action should be taken.

So America was forced to use plan B – fuck the UN.

I’m not aware that the UN had that in the charter, or agreed procedures. What you really mean is that the playground bully decided he wasn’t going to win by following the playground rules.

That’s the same reason why the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment – because if Bush decides to declare an emergency and call off the election and try to make himself president for life, the American people have a plan B to deal with that too.

You can internally justify it until the cows come home - makes no shred of difference. The US failed to make the case where and when it mattered.

who’s left?

See the report I linked.

As for the claims by some liberal think tank that the US was paying off or bullying other nations, yet again, that’s just the left doing a bit of projection.

See the report.

Recall that it was France that was threatening to block different nation’s membership to the EU if they sided with the US.

Which nation ?

CM - 30 January 2006 04:32 PM

You can internally justify it until the cows come home - makes no shred of difference. The US failed to make the case where and when it mattered.

oh. in that case (c) we didn’t know that at the time (revisionist specialist that you are).

You can internally justify it until the cows come home - makes no shred of difference. The US failed to make the case where and when it mattered.

It failed to convince the SC members on the take.  Big shocker.  Anyway, the Senate’s AUMF cited 1441 among others, so in their viewpoint it was consistent with existing resolutions.

For starters, it assumed no wrong-doing or strong-arming on the part of the French.  Also, I am not convinced by “vowing” to “propose” something which as you can plainly see had absolutely no substance in Congress.  Any boycott of French product took place at the behest of angry Americans, who I would remind you also thought boycotting french toast and french fries would have an impact on their economy.

This is basically a summary of the report:
The Institute for Policy Studies has analyzed the relationship between the United States and the
nations in the Security Council and those in Bush’s non-UN coalition. Are these allies supporting
the United States on the merits of the case, or is their support of the U.S. war effort more a result
of coercion, bribes, and bullying?

So that people should carefully scrutinize any claim by the Bush Administration that they have assembled a “coalition of the willing.”

I put it up as evidence of that. Now you are saying that it doesn’t prove something else. Nice try.

How many countries (of the 15) does France have influence over, compared to the US (i.e. all 15) ?

Most of the world HAD the same evidence and refused to ACT on it, even as he kicked inspectors OUT of his country.

He didn’t kick them out. We’ve been through that.
And even so, what are you saying ? The world did pass resolutions and got inspectors back in.

If there’s an accusation buried under your sarcasm, just say it to my face.

Iraq war evidence, evidence that Chavez is meddling in US politics, generalisations about motivations of people that are not right-wing. Not just you though. And it’s pretty continual. And it’s not just me that notices (see ‘the rules’ as posted by Deus).

w0rf - 30 January 2006 04:41 PM

It failed to convince the SC members on the take.  Big shocker.

All SC members were on the take (aside from potentially being so from the US) ?
Internal justification.

w0rf - 30 January 2006 04:41 PM

Anyway, the Senate’s AUMF cited 1441 among others, so in their viewpoint it was consistent with existing resolutions.

Again, internal justification. I could decide that it was legitimate to go and murder my neighbour now. I might even be able to convince everyone that lives in my house. But that doesn’t make it legal or legitimate.
Notwithstanding the US going back to the UN for a second resolution inherently implying that it was required.

CM - 30 January 2006 04:44 PM

Iraq war evidence, evidence that Chavez is meddling in US politics, generalisations about motivations of people that are not right-wing.

good thing a few of the Rare and Fair are here to step up and reason for them.

CM - 30 January 2006 04:44 PM

The Institute for Policy Studies has analyzed the relationship between the United States and the nations in the Security Council and those in Bush’s non-UN coalition. Are these allies supporting the United States on the merits of the case, or is their support of the U.S. war effort more a result of coercion, bribes, and bullying?

So that people should carefully scrutinize any claim by the Bush Administration that they have assembled a “coalition of the willing.”

And they presented a lot of circumstantial evidence.  Your wikipedia article stated definitively that the US strong-armed several countries, and made specific allegations to that effect which do not appear in the report.  I’m not the one coloring the report here.

How many countries (of the 15) does France have influence over, compared to the US (i.e. all 15) ?

If this influence was as widespread as you believed, there would have been another resolution, don’t you think.  By contrast, France has veto power so it does not NEED any influence at all, and it STILL was trying to buy votes.

He didn’t kick them out. We’ve been through that.

Yes he did.

The world did pass resolutions and got inspectors back in.

How did they get back in if they weren’t kicked out?

Iraq war evidence

Yes, and?

evidence that Chavez is meddling in US politics

I never presented “evidence” that he was meddling in our politics, I only opined about his reason for doing so.

generalisations about motivations of people that are not right-wing

I don’t know what sort of generalizations you mean.  Perhaps I’ll just go read Deus’ persecution-complex post for more details.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/30/pakistan.train.ap/index.html

Acts of sabotage targeting trains are common in southwestern Baluchistan province and are usually blamed on restive tribesmen, but are rare in Punjab where Sunday’s crash happened

our “cold-blooded senseless killings by ugly ignorant peasants “ is someone elses “sabotage by restive tribesmen”

CM - 30 January 2006 04:48 PM

All SC members were on the take ?

Bad CM, bad.  You know better.

Notwithstanding the US going back to the UN for a second resolution inherently implying that it was required.

You mean like a second disowning of Al Zarqawi was required?  Or perhaps it was merely desired for greater clarity?

As quoted by CM
One Mexican diplomat reported that the US told them that “any country that doesn’t go along with us will be paying a very heavy price.”

Kind of like the “very heavy price” that their illegal aliens are paying upon entry into this country?  LOL!!!  Kind of like the “very heavy price” the mexican guvment is paying for handing out “safe entry point” U.S./Mexican border maps?  That’s pretty choice comedy right there…

And they presented a lot of circumstantial evidence.  Your wikipedia article stated definitively that the US strong-armed several countries, and made specific allegations to that effect which do not appear in the report.  I’m not the one coloring the report here.

I’ll look for more.

If this influence was as widespread as you believed, there would have been another resolution, don’t you think.  By contrast, France has veto power so it does not NEED any influence at all, and it STILL was trying to buy votes.

As I said, the US experience at the UN represented a failure of coercion. No country wants to be seen as standing alone, especially alone with a veto. It doesn’t mean the US didn’t try hard, and it doesn’t mean that France didn’t either.

Yes he did.

They were pulled out after being accused of spying.

How did they get back in if they weren’t kicked out?

Both sides agreed they could be reinstated.

I never presented “evidence” that he was meddling in our politics, I only opined about his reason for doing so.

By providing your opinion on “his reason to do so” you accepted the circumstantial evidence as sufficient and moved onto guessing motive.

Perhaps I’ll just go read Deus’ persecution-complex post for more details.

Good idea, it is excellent.

Bad CM, bad.  You know better.

I’ll re-phrase:
You said: “It failed to convince the SC members on the take.  Big shocker”
I should have said:  “All eleven of the not-convinced SC members were on the take ?”

You mean like a second disowning of Al Zarqawi was required?  Or perhaps it was merely desired for greater clarity?

Bad w0rf, you know better. There is no comparison between the agreed procedural steps at an international organisation to legitimise an invasion, and the number of times you can call someone a terrorist.
Greater clarity ? I think we were all quite aware what the US wanted - Bush and his team were on the television every day spelling it out. What exactly was going to be “clarified” ?
More like the US wanted the UK along, and that was the price.

Kind of like the “very heavy price” that their illegal aliens are paying upon entry into this country?  LOL!!!  Kind of like the “very heavy price” the mexican guvment is paying for handing out “safe entry point” U.S./Mexican border maps?  That’s pretty choice comedy right there…

Relevance to the subject of force/threats/bribes/bugging being applied at the UN in return for votes ?

And they presented a lot of circumstantial evidence.  Your wikipedia article stated definitively that the US strong-armed several countries, and made specific allegations to that effect which do not appear in the report.  I’m not the one coloring the report here.

“interception of the home and office telephones and the emails of UN delegates in New York”

“undecided countries warned of the unpleasant economic consequences of standing up to the US.”

“diplomats from the countries have been complaining about the outright ‘hostility’ of US tactics in recent days to persuade then to fall in line, including threats to economic and aid packages.”

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905936,00.html

Bugging of foreign diplomats is a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Diplomats from 6 UN Security Council member-states secretly meet one night to write an alternative resolution to the US-British-Spanish draft (see February 24, 2003). The compromise resolution would give UN weapons inspectors additional time to complete their work. But the next morning, a US diplomat contacts the Mexicans and tells them not to proceed with the alternative draft. Former Mexican Ambassador to the UN Aguilar Zinser will tell the Associated Press almost a year later: “Only the people in that room knew what that document said. Early the next morning, I received a call from a US diplomat saying the United States found that text totally unacceptable.” [The Observer, 2/15/04; Associated Press, 2/12/04 Sources: Adolfo Aguilar Zinser] “’When they [the US] found out, they said, ‘You should know that we don’t like the idea and we don’t like you to promote it.’ ” Zinser will also tell The Observer. [The Observer, 2/15/04] Aguilar Zinser believes that US knowledge of the secret initiative meant that the meeting had been under surveillance. “It was very obvious to the countries involved in the discussion on Iraq that we were being observed and that our communications were probably being tapped,” Aguilar Zinser will later explain to the Associated Press. “The information was being gathered to benefit the United States.” [Associated Press, 2/12/04; The Observer, 2/15/04 Sources: Adolfo Aguilar Zinser] Chile will make similar claims, saying that its UN mission telephones were under surveillance. [Associated Press, 2/12/04]

The intended victims of the operation are deeply angered by the memo. President Ricardo Lagos demands an immediate explanation from the US and Chile’s ambassador to Britain Mariano Fern�ndez explains to The Observer, “We cannot understand why the United States was spying on Chile. We were very surprised. Relations have been good with America since the time of George Bush Senior.” [The Observer, 3/9/03] Martin Bright, one of the reporters who helped break the story, later tells the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that the exposed operation has “caused an enormous diplomatic rift between the Chileans and the Americans and the UK.” He says he believes that the leaked memo is partially responsible for Chile’s increasingly defiant stance at the UN. The UN quickly begins a top-level investigation of the spy operation. [Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 3/6/03; The Observer, 3/9/03] The Observer notes that the leaked memo could make it more difficult for the US to obtain UN authorization to wage war on Iraq. [The Observer, 3/2/03] The US media networks largely ignore the story. Though NBC, CNN, and Fox News Channel all arrange for interviews with Martin Bright soon after the story is broken, all three quickly cancel. In an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Bright explains, “It happened with NBC, Fox TV and CNN, who appeared very excited about the story to the extent of sending cars to my house to get me into the studio, and at the last minute, were told by their American desks to drop the story.” [Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 3/6/03; Salon, 3/3/03]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&specific;_cases_and_issues=US-BritishSpyingOnUN

The US was pressing Chile, Mexico - enormous pressures were brought to bear. What’s remarkable is that these countries didn’t break.
And if you remember the other part of the context is we were then all deceived about the French position and told the French had said they’d veto any second resolution - which wasn’t true, we now know.
Chirac said we’d veto now because Blix needs his time but if Blix failed then of course we would vote with others to organise military action.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3489372.stm

Eleven of the fifteen council members have indicated that they favor allowing the inspectors to continue their work. Fox News suggests that the US may be able to convince some countries—like Angola, Guinea and Cameroon—to support the resolution since “there is the possibility that supporting the resolution may reap financial benefits from the United States.” [Fox News, 2/24/03]

So it’s not just in that report that these things has been discussed.

CM - 31 January 2006 06:07 AM

As I said, the US experience at the UN represented a failure of coercion.

Your notion of coercion is so far not convincing.  From where I stand, it represented a failure to get the UN to actually DO anything about this wingnut.

No country wants to be seen as standing alone, especially alone with a veto.

Especially a veto by a country on the take?

They were pulled out after being accused of spying.

That is a semantical argument, a distinction without a difference.

By providing your opinion on “his reason to do so” you accepted the circumstantial evidence as sufficient and moved onto guessing motive.

So it is your opinion that he has no interest in influencing the US political landscape?  The evidence in question was his shorting on the price of home heating oil, which is not in dispute.

Good idea, it is excellent.

Having seen it, I disagree.  If you’re accusing me of making statements and not providing real support for them, I disagree strongly.  And I take great exception to the notion that I would go around citing World Net Daily, when in fact I make it a point to stay away from sources which MIGHT be discredited as “right-wing” or of questionable value, e.g., wikipedia.  And unlike my detractors here, I actually think the other side has a point, and the point of a debate is to look at the merits of each side.  I wish I could say I see the courtesy returned, but largely, I do not.

I’ll re-phrase:
You said: “It failed to convince the SC members on the take.  Big shocker”
I should have said:  “All eleven of the not-convinced SC members were on the take ?”

That doesn’t change the part that you got wrong even after we covered this earlier.  If a member with veto power is on the take, IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW MANY OTHERS ARE DOING THE SAME.  The fact that there were in fact THREE members who had more to gain by keeping Saddam in power only amplifies this point.

Bad w0rf, you know better.

oooooh, you turned my phrase around no me, I bow before your intellectual superiority.  I feel so pwnt.

There is no comparison between the agreed procedural steps at an international organisation to legitimise an invasion, and the number of times you can call someone a terrorist.

Sure there is, it’s called greater clarity.

Greater clarity ? I think we were all quite aware what the US wanted - Bush and his team were on the television every day spelling it out. What exactly was going to be “clarified” ?
More like the US wanted the UK along, and that was the price.

The US wanted everybody along, and was understandably concerned that some might decide that “severe consequences” would take the form of still more resolutions which mean nothing, while France and Russia get the sanctions lifted, Saddam restarts his nuclear program carte blanche and tens of millions of people continue to live under his barbarous thumb.  Given the two options, I don’t see how we were the unreasonable party here.

Your notion of coercion is so far not convincing.  From where I stand, it represented a failure to get the UN to actually DO anything about this wingnut.

I am sure you are well aware that this is simply untrue. Alternatives were immediately dismissed by the US.

Especially a veto by a country on the take?

Sure, I would expect even more so.

That is a semantical argument, a distinction without a difference.

You were the one using emotive language - ‘kicked out’. When you start using semantics to get to a point where you can change it to an emotive word, then it does make a difference within a discussion.

So it is your opinion that he has no interest in influencing the US political landscape?  The evidence in question was his shorting on the price of home heating oil, which is not in dispute.

I’m sure he probably does have an interest. No, again, that was NOT the evidence in question - the evidence I was asked about was the linked article. This must be the 5th time I’ve had to repeat this.

unlike my detractors here, I actually think the other side has a point, and the point of a debate is to look at the merits of each side.  I wish I could say I see the courtesy returned, but largely, I do not.

Detractors at Moorewatch, or in this thread ?
Why don’t you ever acknowledge that the other side has a point then ? I can’t recall that happening, and it’s certainly a surprise to read that you think that. In my experience you often get all upset and start making curt, saracastic and inflammatory comments when you disagree - you come across as arrogant and take the attitude of an expert on many topics, looking down your nose at anyone who dares to disagree. I’m always interested in a discussion. Unfortunately in the last few months, since you and CigarSkunk have posted more often, discussions are all-but impossible. It seems to turn into who can ridicule who the most.
I’ve never seen even a hint of you trying to apologise or tone-down or diffuse in any of these situations. I suspect this is why some people just don’t bother posting anymore.
I fully understand that you get frustrated when someone disagrees with you. I just don’t understand why it has to manifest itself in a discussion turning unenjoyable.

That doesn’t change the part that you got wrong even after we covered this earlier.  If a member with veto power is on the take, IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW MANY OTHERS ARE DOING THE SAME.  The fact that there were in fact THREE members who had more to gain by keeping Saddam in power only amplifies this point.

And if they were isolated as the only countries against an invasion at that time, the US would have had a stronger position. Particularly when it later is revealed that the only countries who disagreed were on the take. This is why I want an explanation as to how all 11 were ‘on the take’.

oooooh, you turned my phrase around no me, I bow before your intellectual superiority.  I feel so pwnt.

Only returning the compliment after you did it to me (in the argument about the use of the word ‘comfortable’ in the thread on US media manipulation in Iraq).

Sure there is, it’s called greater clarity.

Well I strongly disagree that this was the reason.

The US wanted everybody along, and was understandably concerned that some might decide that “severe consequences” would take the form of still more resolutions which mean nothing, while France and Russia get the sanctions lifted, Saddam restarts his nuclear program carte blanche and tens of millions of people continue to live under his barbarous thumb.  Given the two options, I don’t see how we were the unreasonable party here.

Blix wanted a few more months to complete the job, and certain countries put forward an alternative plan to allow him.
Breaching UN procedure and prosecuting a war without explicit UN consent makes the US the unreasonable party.
If the US hadn’t gone to the UN it would have been worse. They certainly should have gone and tried to get the 2nd resolution. They just decided to depart from the rules they agreed to when they didn’t get their way. They should have agreed with what could have agreed to, and gone along with that. There was no evidence of any immediate threat that would get in the way of the alternative inspection-completed plan.

CM - 31 January 2006 09:41 AM

If the US hadn’t gone to the UN it would have been worse. They certainly should have gone and tried to get the 2nd resolution. They just decided to depart from the rules they agreed to when they didn’t get their way. They should have agreed with what could have agreed to, and gone along with that. There was no evidence of any immediate threat that would get in the way of the alternative inspection-completed plan.

well now we’ll see how well sticking to the rules works with iran.

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2006/01/31/iran-nuclear-diplomacy.html

Iran turned over nuclear weapons documents: report
Last Updated Tue, 31 Jan 2006 07:59:38 EST
CBC News
Iran has turned over documents to the UN’s nuclear watchdog that describe how to cast uranium into the shape of warheads, the Associated Press reported on Tuesday.

iran: we never had any intention of building weapons

The report comes hours after the United