What would it take......

[ultraviolet7]

In response to us3

what dread said,(if someone can show me how to parse a quote into sections I would throw in an additional 2cents ans. UV7), coupled with the fact that the author of the article is well qualified, as he actually went undercover into Iraqikurdistan and substantiated Iraqi-AlQaeda link, etc...and saw first hand harm done to Kurds from chemical attacks.

I believe there is a longer and more substantive essay is in the New Yorker or Sunday Times Mag. This article I posted was actually an ongoing dial. at slate.

I never said the author of the article wasn't well qualified, simply regarding the aflatoxin I said that it made no sense that if the threat that this weapon implies in Hussein's hands has been proved seven years ago, no action had been taken so far. I found some of his statements to be arrogant and disrespectful towards other people who might have as much experience as he has in the Middle East situation but hold different views. Regarding the Iraqi-terrorist networks links he did not forward any proof regarding this, at least not on this article. I'm not saying that he can't come up with evidence, simply that he has not mentioned it esp when it's related to an issue which has been profusely discussed in the past few months and in every case such evidence failed to show up. If there's a more comprehensive article maybe you'd like to post a link for it. My comment is on what was actually posted.

To me the most salient point of the article is the last 3 paragraphs, and gives support to titled thread...

"Israel's sneak attack on a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression," the editorial states. "Even assuming that Iraq was hellbent to divert enriched uranium for the manufacture of nuclear weapons, it would have been working toward a capacity that Israel itself acquired long ago."

Israel absorbed the world's hatred and scorn for its attack on the Osirak reactor in 1981. Today, it is accepted as fact by most arms-control experts that, had Israel not destroyed Osirak, Saddam Hussein's Iraq would have been a nuclear power by 1990, when his forces pillaged their way across Kuwait.

The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

This part is really what I disagree more with. I've already made my comment on the "morality" issue. Re the Israel sneak attack on the Osirak reactor I'm absolutely with the New York Times editorial excerpt except for the "short-sighted" qualification. While in this case pre-emptive action could have resulted in a positive outcome, to condone it in the light of the result obtained with the benefit of 10/20 years history to judge it, opens in my opinion a dangerous precedent in that it becomes acceptable that any state acts aggressively against another at its own discretion if the goal is in the long run considered "beneficial", the latter a concept way too blurred since it depends on who actually judges it. Israel itself holds nuclear power as other states like Pakistan and India do. Who can positively say that they are not going to pose a threat in 10/20 years' time? In 1981 Iraq was theoretically posing no more of a nuclear threat than Musharraf or even Isreal itself with nuclear power are posing now. While Israel's attack was claimed to have been performed as act of pre-emptive self-defence, what would Mr Goldberg say if say Syria or the Palestinians (if they had the power to do so) enacted a similar operation against an Israeli reactor alleging self-defense against a state who is hostile to them? I'd rather be careful in letting individual countries make certain decisions.

 

[Dreadsox]

Nope, not yet! I'm gonna turn ya into chopped liver if you continue to disagree with martha, Foxxern and me!! (runs after Dreadsox with a chopping knife)

Hehe...I believe through disagreements come concensus.

I wasn't either. Anyway my comment arose from what the article claimed to be a definite threat as reported from a UN inspector.

Well, it made me think twice about eating pistachios.

It's strange since I haven't read anything about this even in the last few days. In fact it was publicised that the US government was making such a claim, but could come up with no evidence to back it. Anyway if you say that it was reported that evidence regarding the Iraq-terrorist networks link was unearthed, and the source who provided the information is trustworthy there's nothing to say.

I should probably clarify. The government in Israel turned it over to our governement. The actual "information" was not presented. I am slightly sceptical of it now myself since I was hoping for more of a case by the president last night.



Peace to all......

 

[STING2]

In response to Ultraviolet7:

Last January, I was in Dublin Ireland and had the opportunity to talk at length over several different days with a women from Pakistan. She told me that the majority of the people in Pakistan support the USA and want their help to safeguard against the possibility of war with India. She told me that the demonstrations that everyone sees on TV represent a minority of Pakistani's and while most were not thrilled about US bombing in Afghanistan, most understood why and were happy to help the USA and protect American citizens living in Pakistan from Muslim extremist. This of course concurs with what I had read in other area's about the true feeling of most Pakistanies on these issues.

In regards to Iraq, I meant that the Soviet presense in Iraq would have prevented the USA from being able to successfully sanction Iraq at that time, if it had wanted to. Of course the USA at the time of the Iran/Iraq war prefered an Iraqi victory as opposed to a Iranian victory. In a bit of Irony, the Soviets did most of the work in helping Iraq defeat an thereby contain the Iranian threat to US interest in the region. Of course it was just a happy coincidence because the Soviets were simply protecting their interest in Iraq.

"There was absolutely no way of unseating the Taleban? Scores of times regimes have been toppled without the need of a war. Why was it impossible to avoid the war this time?"

The only strong opposition in the country to the Taliban was the Northern Alliance and they had been severely weakened. But with massive US airpower and special forces units, the Taliban were dislodged from power in a relatively short amount of time by Afghanistans standards and with a relatively small loss of life given Afghanistans history. Only strong military force could have dislodged the Taliban which had a death grip on Afghan society. When the military is supportive of what ever dictatorship is in power, outside military force is needed if the goal is to topple the regime.

Reports by some of these media organizations have simply not been reliably proven. A lot of these same or similar organizations talked about a mass slaughter and Jenin. The international peace keeping forces are usually much more credible in determining these things because they are on the ground and have access to area's that are difficult for civilian journalist to get into. In addition, they have military and technical experts better prepared to acertain what happened in a given military situation. I know someone that is currently stationed in Afghanistan but has not been able to say much since he has been over there. He is coming home in a couple of months and I may get to see him then. I'll ask him how many cluster bombs he saw. I recognize the problem and there have been some accidents, but the problem is not as big as some have reported it to be. Most cluster bombs did explode on impact, but there are duds in some patches that do not and could explode at a later time. The problem is not even a tiny fraction of the problem with Soviet/Taliban/ and other factions that laid mines throughout the country.


"The fact that nothing is heard on the press about hunting for Al-Qaeda members and bin Laden himself means that it's either not a priority any longer or that no noticeable progress has been made in such a hunt."

I don't think I need to remind you that there are tons of things that happen on a daily basis that are not reported or not widely reported to the media. The CIA and FBI do not necessarily report about someone they have caputured or killed. Much of the hunting of Al-Quada is something that happens behind the scenes and is not something the media gets access to. The friend I have in Afghanistan is currently engaged in a massive sweep of Southwestern Afghanistan, little of which(and in some cases nothing) has been reported by the media. He talked to another one of my friends and said he would not be able to communicate for another 3 to 4 weeks. Try telling him the hunt for Al-Quada is not a priority.

I admit that Bin Ladin could still be alive, but I would be amazed if he were. For a person, who desired to be seen so often, and was seen from and heard from until December of last year by doing his little TV propaganda operations, I doubt he would just give that up, but perhaps a light bulb turned on in his head and he realized that it was not wise to be attempting to be in the media so often. Perhaps he has been scared into being silent, at least temporarily. Because a year has gone by does not mean that Al-Quada is not operative. I think Al-Quada has some cells that continue to operate on their own, but in time they will be intercepted. But, then what would constitute as evidence that Al-Quada was no longer operative?

 

[us3]

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20021009.jhtml



well that's it! I am sold. Oprah W. is on board w/ taking out Sadaam.

 

[deep]

well that's it! I am sold. Oprah W. is on board w/ taking out Sadaam.

Mr. United States III

ah true, true.
but has Steadman committed yet?

 

[DrTeeth]

As a punishment, they should force Saddam to engage in a conversation with Dr. Phil who'll TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!!!

 

[us3]

Mr. United States III

ah true, true.
but has Steadman committed yet?

it's us3 as in me, myself, and I. Or, stuck in the middle w/ u and bono's coal miner.

stedman is as stedman does....

 

[TylerDurden]

I admit that Bin Ladin could still be alive, but I would be amazed if he were.

It doesn't surprise me that the US military (maybe) hasn't shot/caught him (one man with a whole country, maybe 2, to hide in, is a big ask) but what is the bounty on his head? US$25million? They say he hangs with about a hundred or so of his homies when he travels around, I'm surprised one of them hasn't taken a shot or passed on info. $100 is a fortune in Afghanistan, let alone $25mill. Guess it shows how loyal & determined they are. Or dead they are I suppose.

 

[Foxxern]

As a punishment, they should force Saddam to engage in a conversation with Dr. Phil who'll TELL IT LIKE IT IS!!!!

Yeah that man's a genius

 

[ultraviolet7]

Last January, I was in Dublin Ireland and had the opportunity to talk at length over several different days with a women from Pakistan. She told me that the majority of the people in Pakistan support the USA and want their help to safeguard against the possibility of war with India. She told me that the demonstrations that everyone sees on TV represent a minority of Pakistani's and while most were not thrilled about US bombing in Afghanistan, most understood why and were happy to help the USA and protect American citizens living in Pakistan from Muslim extremist. This of course concurs with what I had read in other area's about the true feeling of most Pakistanies on these issues.

It's interesting and the view regarding the war against India is credible. However, as much as it is the view of a local and deserves my respect as such it is not concurrent with what the press reports about Musharraf having been, previous to the war in Afghanistan (i.e. before his government lent aid to the US), at risk of being overthrown by fundamentalist groups with wide support in the area. Maybe this woman's view is really the view of most Pakistanis, maybe it's not.

Reports by some of these media organizations have simply not been reliably proven. A lot of these same or similar organizations talked about a mass slaughter and Jenin. The international peace keeping forces are usually much more credible in determining these things because they are on the ground and have access to area's that are difficult for civilian journalist to get into. In addition, they have military and technical experts better prepared to acertain what happened in a given military situation. I know someone that is currently stationed in Afghanistan but has not been able to say much since he has been over there. He is coming home in a couple of months and I may get to see him then. I'll ask him how many cluster bombs he saw. I recognize the problem and there have been some accidents, but the problem is not as big as some have reported it to be. Most cluster bombs did explode on impact, but there are duds in some patches that do not and could explode at a later time. The problem is not even a tiny fraction of the problem with Soviet/Taliban/ and other factions that laid mines throughout the country.

FAO is not a media organisation nor Oxfam is. Surely you are aware that FAO is a UN branch whose mission is to work to alleviate poverty and hunger by promoting agricultural development, improved nutrition, and the pursuit of food security, and that Oxfam is an international aid agency with extensive presence in the area. Their reports regarding the impossibility to distribute aid, particularly food, are to be given credibility since who would know better than an agency like Oxfam if they could get the aid through to people or not? Who would know better than them the quantity of people that were actually cut off food supplies, if it is them who work directly in the field with these people? Re FAO, they issued a report at the beginning of the war indicating the risks any military action involving bombing of certain areas would create. They are bound to know which areas crops are grown in and what the degree of dependence on those crops on part of local population is. It's precisely part of their job to make such assessments.

I don't think I need to remind you that there are tons of things that happen on a daily basis that are not reported or not widely reported to the media. The CIA and FBI do not necessarily report about someone they have caputured or killed. Much of the hunting of Al-Quada is something that happens behind the scenes and is not something the media gets access to. The friend I have in Afghanistan is currently engaged in a massive sweep of Southwestern Afghanistan, little of which(and in some cases nothing) has been reported by the media. He talked to another one of my friends and said he would not be able to communicate for another 3 to 4 weeks. Try telling him the hunt for Al-Quada is not a priority.

I admit that Bin Ladin could still be alive, but I would be amazed if he were. For a person, who desired to be seen so often, and was seen from and heard from until December of last year by doing his little TV propaganda operations, I doubt he would just give that up, but perhaps a light bulb turned on in his head and he realized that it was not wise to be attempting to be in the media so often. Perhaps he has been scared into being silent, at least temporarily. Because a year has gone by does not mean that Al-Quada is not operative. I think Al-Quada has some cells that continue to operate on their own, but in time they will be intercepted. But, then what would constitute as evidence that Al-Quada was no longer operative?

I'm aware that "tons of things that happen on a daily basis are not reported or not widely reported to the media", however do you seriously think that if the CIA or the US military had captured bin Laden or any other conspicuous Al-Qaeda member they would shut up about it? I did not say that the Al-Qaeda hunt was not a priority, I said that in view of events i.e. lack of media coverage of the issue, either there has not been much progress lately or it it has stopped being considered a top priority. If you have on-location data that reports that it is still a priority the silence of the media obviously responds to the lack of any major success in this operation.

Well, an Al-Qaeda commander has reappeared recently, as you must be aware, issuing threats of attacks on Berlin and Paris. Whether they've still got the power to fulfil them or not is something else. What would constitute a proof that Al-Qaeda is no longer operative? The capture alive or dead of bin Laden and his commanders would constitute a good starting point. If after this there are no more Al-Qaeda operations during a prudential lapse of time (a year, two, three?) it could be concluded that they are no longer operative - at least not in the present phase.

 

[ultraviolet7]

Hehe...I believe through disagreements come concensus.

I beg your pardon?

Maybe through the exchange of different points of view perhaps?

Well, it made me think twice about eating pistachios.

I should probably clarify. The government in Israel turned it over to our governement. The actual "information" was not presented. I am slightly sceptical of it now myself since I was hoping for more of a case by the president last night.

Thanks for the clarification. That explains why the press didn't make much of something that should have been a spread.

 

[TripThruUreWires]

The one thing i cannot stand are individuals who brashly jump at the chance to shout their oversimplified stances, which are literally as profound as the three word phrases painted across the plaquards they hold up. I don't think either side knows just how precarious this situation with Iraq is. I KNOW they have no idea just how precarious it must be to be in George W. Bush's shoes. Yet, they find it so easy to call him a "war-monger" or this or that, or to cry out that their constitutional rights are being violated. The bottom line is, whatever course the U.S. should take, there are going to be a hell of a lot of repercussions, and i'm pretty damn sure that Bush and his cabinet are more than aware of that.

as for me, i'll just pray.

 

[nbcrusader]

as for me, i'll just pray.

 

[Dreadsox]

Did anyone else see the training tapes of Al-Qaeda training three man sniper teams? I am just again wondering back to the initial news report that started me on this thread. The report was on a Friday that American schools may be subject to attack, and the next Monday the sniper hit a school. Now with the video of the sniper teams training, I am again wondering why they almost seam to be ruling out AL-Qaeda in this sniper situation. Or are they? Now that they have brought in the military to assist the police, the man/men, have apparently gone into hiding.


Just wondering....again......What would it take?

 

[anitram]

In Islam, there are three types of people. Believers, those who will become believers and infidels. As a Christian, I fall in this last catagory.

This is not true.

In TRUE Islam, Christians are seen as People of the Book.

 

[Klaus]

Just wondering....again......What would it take?

Off course everyone supports the Police to find those people, then if there is any consperancy we have to find the ppl. who stand behind those teams..

..but do you think bombing any country and killing a few thousand innocent peole would help to stop further terror acts?
I think they would increase - because imho the reason for terror is hate.

Of course we have to get countries who are still having al-quada training camps on their teretory to stop their support - and war should allways be the last - not the first option.

If countries don't judge terrorists themself than the ICC is the perfect institution to judge them. Why dosn't the US government support the ICC anymore who was just invented for cases like that?
A non US Court would be more respected in the arabic world than a US Military tribunal.

Interesting site note - the war against terror focuses (for whatever reason) on other countries at the moment..

Klaus