Everyone seems to be in agreement that Saddam is an evil man. He's killed and tortured many of his own people, launched regional wars of aggression, in both cases using weapons of mass destruction. As many point out, the US in the past has made great mistakes in its foreign policy. But that has nothing to do with the present. The decision to create this monster in the past does not suggest we should allow him to continue now; on the contrary, it suggests we should slay the monster we created and repay our debt of honor to the Iraqi people.
Because two wrongs don't make a right. When Hussein was our pal in the '80's, we knew about everything he did, and it didn't bother us much, we gave him what he asked for. Now that we've apparently come to our senses, we cannot, as much as we'd all like to, simply go in from outside and remove him. You'd be surprised by how the Iraqis *won't* appreciate their 'liberation'.
We also have the problem that inspections in the past have failed; they did not find his biological programs (those were revealed by a son-in-law who defected, who Saddam murdered in retaliation for this revelation). Neither did they "contain" Saddam, who kicked out the inspectors in 1998, and we have every reason to believe that his weapons programs will continue and the inspectors will either be fooled or kicked out once again if the US military stands down. Neither will such supposed containment deter Saddam from passing these horrific weapons to terrorists or otherwise supporting them, leaving no fingerprints behind.
Point 1: The UNSCOM inspectors did uncover and destroy liquid Anthrax and other nasty things during their first inspections. This was in the mid '90's, after the Gulf War. The bio agents that they had had a shelf life of 3 years. The UNSCOM inpectors themselves claim that they managed to find and deal with 95% of Iraq's chem and bio stockpiles.
Point Two: Hussein did not "kick out" the inspectors in 1998. They we told that they should get out before Desert Fox began. Their safety could not be guaranteed vis a vis the bombs that were about to drop. Iraq (and the U.N.) we also pretty upset that the U.S. was using the inspection data to develop air strike packages.
If Saddam is allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, we can expect to see a situation worse than North Korea today. Saddam's stated goal is to dominate the region, which will cause turmoil in several ways: 1st, the world economy will be thrown into chaos, as the Middle east is the main source of energy. 2nd, it will start a regional nuclear arms race, as neighboring states attempt to counter Iraq's nuclear force. 3rd, saddam's genoicidal and murderous practices will be expanded to millions more. Finally, we will have no defense against terrorism if Iraq is allowed to develop a significant deterrent.
That's a HUGE IF. Manufacturing nuclear weapons of the "dropping" variety is not something that can be done out of a barn. We would know. He doesn't have them, because he never had them. There's no doubt that before the Gulf War he was tying to get them, but under the sanctions regime, the materials needed to develop nukes and the ability to produce them is beyond his grasp. If he had them, or had evidence that he was gearing up to make them, we'd be there already.
WRT to Iraq and terrorism, has Saddam Hussein supported international terrorists? Yes, probably. So does Saudi Arabia (at fairly high levels, too.) Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi, but Iraqi *agent*? You don't know that. Incidentally, the recent 'evidence' that Sec. State Powell unveiled trying to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Q showing pictures of a camp in Northern Iraq is a blatant lie. That that area is actually controlled by the US and GB, Saddam has no power there, it's been that way since 1991. There *are*, however, Kurdish groups that are somewhat Aligned with Al-Queda, and technically they are in Iraq, but they have no affiliation with Saddam.
And here's what I would do: 1. Continue the inspections. Hussein isn't going to invade anybody. He isn't going to do a freakin' thing, because he knows what will happen.
2. The US needs to drop the John Wayne act. Pretty soon, we won't have a friend left in the world. Then Hussein can continue to give Bush the finger, because without international support, it ain't happening.
3. Get back to dismantling Al-Queda, and while we're at it, let's get back to Afghanistan.
That's what I would do. I just don't think Iraq is much of threat.
For that kind of money, you could buy the biggest of the new Vespas, with enough money left over to fuel the thing for years. You could even afford an Aprilia Scarabeo. I'd buy one of those for urban travel before I bought a Segway...
How much you wanna bet that Kenneth Lay has excellent credit? Kozlowski probably does, too. That pretty much shoots your argument, does it not? Oh wait, Lay only fleeced the shareholders of Enron, not the company itself, after all, how can you steal from a company that never made any money?
Not so. Some checks don't affect your score, and some do. I have so-so credit, not great, not awful. I could get a loan, but I have to pay more. Anyway, I signed up with an agency to help me with my credit, and apparently there are some inquiries that will affect your score.
That being said, credit checks are probably irrelevant to job performance, I had a tax lien once, and it shows up on my credit report and it's definitely a ding, but a lot of the bad credit stuff I have is from a while ago when I was young and irresponsible. A credit check wouldn't be so bad as long as I knew that the person examining it knew what they were looking at.
And the one where Lisa drinks the water at the Duff Gardens "It's a small world" ride and hallucinates madly. The writers definitely knew what they were talking about there, with those tracers...
I was developing web-based HR apps with our own home-made scripting language similar to ASP/PHP in 1995, so this can't possibly be right. I should send the white papers, etc. to them to illustrate prior art.
Pretty much all bolt-action rifles work this way, it makes them easier to clean. Yes, you could always remove the slide on your automatic pistol, or the cylinder on your revolver, too, but then you might as well just throw the pieces at your attacker.
It's not that they're dumb, they're just not thinking. Check out this article this article in Esquire. They come up with these things, not having any idea about how they're going to implement it, or whether they will implement it at all. If it sounds good, and makes them look good, they're for it. For many of the folks in the administration, government simply cannot ever do anything good for anyone. The only thing the government is good for is keeping track of who's saying what about you, and bombing the hell out of countries so piss-poor and beaten that they can't possibly fight back.
You cannot, under any circumstances, own an automatic weapon
This is, for all intents and purposes, also true in the US. In order to possess a fully automatic, or 'selective fire' firearm you will need a Class III license, which are issued by the ATF only after close (I mean very close) scrutiny. A regular joe stands virtually no chance of being approved for this type of license. The only people who get them are private training agencies, the kinds of people who train cops and such. After that, you will be subject to regular checks by ATF agents. Class III licenses are also very expensive. I don't know about other states, but in CA in order to buy a handgun, you must take and pass a safety test, and be over 21 years old.
First, I should say that I own guns, most of family members have owned them, and I've pretty much grown up with them. I am also a 'liberal', and I no incompatibility with these two points of view. I believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms of any type, within reasonable limits. I don't see a reason for private citizens to own selective fire (what the military uses) firearms. I disagree with the term 'assault weapon', because it's basically meaningless and it's code for 'scary looking'. First, the problem is not guns per se, but violence and violent crime. The causes of these are well known: poverty and economic and social injustice. You can pull all the guns off the streets, but it won't do a damn bit of good unless the underlying causes are addressed. I don't think you could ever argue that guns cause people to be violent, or that someone is more likely to commit a crime simply because they obtain a gun. The logic isn't "Gee, I have this gun, now I have to think up a crime to commit." The logic is really "I want to commit some crimes, so I should get a gun." Gun control is not totally odious either. In California, in order to buy a hand gun, you need to obtain a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate which you get by taking a test similar to the test you take to get a driver's license. There's a ten day waiting period for all purchases (including gun show purchases), and you undergo a background check. These are all reasonable to me. There is one other point that I'd like to make. A lot of people who advocate gun control have so little knowledge about what the process is to obtain a gun, and what you can and cannot legally buy, that it hardly advances their case. Every time I hear some shrill advocate talk about 'automatic weapons in the hands of children', I cringe. Likewise for the old saw about someone going around the corner to a gun shop and walking out of there the same day with a gun to kill their wife. It just doesn't happen. If you're going to advocate a position, it's really a good idea to understand the topic you're discussing, otherwise, people like me who know what the deal is just think you're an idiot. Black market firearms are a problem, and if law enforcement had the the resources to go after illegal gun dealers like they go after drug users, the problem would be well on its way to being fixed.
More important than large amounts of cash are large chunks of voters. These groups can deliver votes, and when you have only 30% of the electorate actually voting, these groups, when they turn out, have a disproportionate impact, which is why politicians bend over for them.
So basically anyone who doesn't share your views is a traitor? Do you even know what treason is? You don't mess around with words like that. If you told that to my face, I believe you'd be picking your teeth up off the ground one by one. I believe that what the administration is doing is wrong, but I would never accuse them of treason. To oppose what they want to do is called *dissent*, not treason.
Are you even going to try to address the points I've managed to bring up? Or are you just going to call me names? If you can't handle yourself in a debate, don't engage in one.
So, I take it that you'll be joining our armed forces soon right? Or are you going to develop a bum knee? Anal cysts like your hero Rush? Or will you go through what Tom DeLay did and try to join up, only to be denied a spot because minorities are taking up the available slots. I guess you could always join the Air National Guard and then not bother to show up... Perhaps you have 'other priorities' like Mr. Cheney?
You disgust me. I did my time in the Navy (USS John A Moore, FFG 19) , and what these people are doing has nothing to do with defending this country, and everything to do with lining their own pockets. If they were truly interested in defending this country, how come Osama Bin Laden still lives? My colleagues in the Armed Services didn't join up to preserve Exxon's bottom line. I don't want to hear you, or Limbaugh or freakin' Saxby Chambliss ever talk about 'defending' this country, since they were obviously too chicken shit to toddle on down to the recruiter and so much as join the fucking National Guard.
So, can you illustrate for us liberal idiots why supply-side economics works, even though it doesn't?
Perhaps you can explain to us how the establishment clause in the constitution doesn't mean what the Supreme Court says it means?
Can you tell me why the Republican party works to drive down voter turn-out via attack ads? (Here's a clue: if everyone voted, they'd never get elected dog catcher, let alone president)
Do you know who Richard Mellon Scaife is, and what he spends his money on?
Could you tell us exactly, in one sentence, what Bill Clinton did that warranted an impeachment? (The following are not acceptable answers: Anything having to do with consensual sex, character, dead people in Arkansas, foolish real estate investments)
Also, I didn't realize that Rush was a deep political thinker. Funny, I don't remember reading any of his work while studying political science. I would also add at this point, that conservatives have valid points, and there are some conservative thinkers that have interesting and possibly workable ideas. However, Limbaugh is not one of them. If you're going to run around spouting conservative ideas, at least get some better role models like Bill Buckley, John Dean and William Safire. Thoughtful, intelligent conservatives willing to engage in a real debate further your cause much more than people like Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly who can't handle it when people disagree with them.
I got that beat. I had a '67 1800s with 750K+ miles on it, original engine and transmission. I gave it a valve job, and when I had the head off, I measured the cylinders, and they were still at factory specs... They don't build 'em like that anymore. I recently drove a post-Ford Volvo, and found that the overall quality was just not as good as the pre-Ford models. Oh well...
Well, if you want some pro-Bush reporting, you can always check out NewsMax, or National Review Online. Salon is definitely left of center. Socialist? Perhaps, but considering that I've never met a so-called "conservative" who could actually give a definition of socialism other than "it's what the democrats want, and it's really bad."
I'm sick and tired of liberals being brow-beaten into agreeing with the conservatives simply because conservatives start screaming about Clinton and blow jobs and 'liberal media bias', and are made to apologize for not wanting to turn the country into a brutal theocracy based on 'merit' and the thoroughly debunked supply-side economics...
There's this news channel called Fox News, which, while claiming to be fair and balanced, is nothing but right-wing propaganda. I'll bet that anything that doesn't reinforce your obviously right wing views is considered by you to be 'liberal', and therefore bad, even if it's simply corporate centrist infotainment.
Limbaugh? You're a dittohead? I give up. There's no getting through to fools like you.
Ummm.. Have you ever actually read any of the articles in salon, or are you just going by what you've read at NewsMax?
Are you seriously suggesting that Rush, Ollie North, and the other right wing guys have anything to offer other than attacking? During Clinton's presidency, all they did was attack, all the time screaming about Clinton's sex life? I've haven't read much in Salon that can truly be classified as an 'attack'. Criticism is different than an attack. Read Arianna Huffington's column, you'll get alternatives, not just attacks...
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone seems to be in agreement that Saddam is an evil man. He's killed and tortured many of his own people, launched regional wars of aggression, in both cases using weapons of mass destruction. As many point out, the US in the past has made great mistakes in its foreign policy. But that has nothing to do with the present. The decision to create this monster in the past does not suggest we should allow him to continue now; on the contrary, it suggests we should slay the monster we created and repay our debt of honor to the Iraqi people.
Because two wrongs don't make a right. When Hussein was our pal in the '80's, we knew about everything he did, and it didn't bother us much, we gave him what he asked for. Now that we've apparently come to our senses, we cannot, as much as we'd all like to, simply go in from outside and remove him. You'd be surprised by how the Iraqis *won't* appreciate their 'liberation'.
We also have the problem that inspections in the past have failed; they did not find his biological programs (those were revealed by a son-in-law who defected, who Saddam murdered in retaliation for this revelation). Neither did they "contain" Saddam, who kicked out the inspectors in 1998, and we have every reason to believe that his weapons programs will continue and the inspectors will either be fooled or kicked out once again if the US military stands down. Neither will such supposed containment deter Saddam from passing these horrific weapons to terrorists or otherwise supporting them, leaving no fingerprints behind.
Point 1: The UNSCOM inspectors did uncover and destroy liquid Anthrax and other nasty things during their first inspections. This was in the mid '90's, after the Gulf War. The bio agents that they had had a shelf life of 3 years. The UNSCOM inpectors themselves claim that they managed to find and deal with 95% of Iraq's chem and bio stockpiles.
Point Two: Hussein did not "kick out" the inspectors in 1998. They we told that they should get out before Desert Fox began. Their safety could not be guaranteed vis a vis the bombs that were about to drop. Iraq (and the U.N.) we also pretty upset that the U.S. was using the inspection data to develop air strike packages.
If Saddam is allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, we can expect to see a situation worse than North Korea today. Saddam's stated goal is to dominate the region, which will cause turmoil in several ways: 1st, the world economy will be thrown into chaos, as the Middle east is the main source of energy. 2nd, it will start a regional nuclear arms race, as neighboring states attempt to counter Iraq's nuclear force. 3rd, saddam's genoicidal and murderous practices will be expanded to millions more. Finally, we will have no defense against terrorism if Iraq is allowed to develop a significant deterrent.
That's a HUGE IF. Manufacturing nuclear weapons of the "dropping" variety is not something that can be done out of a barn. We would know. He doesn't have them, because he never had them. There's no doubt that before the Gulf War he was tying to get them, but under the sanctions regime, the materials needed to develop nukes and the ability to produce them is beyond his grasp. If he had them, or had evidence that he was gearing up to make them, we'd be there already.
WRT to Iraq and terrorism, has Saddam Hussein supported international terrorists? Yes, probably. So does Saudi Arabia (at fairly high levels, too.)
Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi, but Iraqi *agent*? You don't know that. Incidentally, the recent 'evidence' that Sec. State Powell unveiled trying to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Q showing pictures of a camp in Northern Iraq is a blatant lie. That that area is actually controlled by the US and GB, Saddam has no power there, it's been that way since 1991. There *are*, however, Kurdish groups that are somewhat Aligned with Al-Queda, and technically they are in Iraq, but they have no affiliation with Saddam.
And here's what I would do:
1. Continue the inspections. Hussein isn't going to invade anybody. He isn't going to do a freakin' thing, because he knows what will happen.
2. The US needs to drop the John Wayne act. Pretty soon, we won't have a friend left in the world. Then Hussein can continue to give Bush the finger, because without international support, it ain't happening.
3. Get back to dismantling Al-Queda, and while we're at it, let's get back to Afghanistan.
That's what I would do. I just don't think Iraq is much of threat.
Alternate Spelling. Both are correct.
Yeah, but she still looks like a dork. Cute, but dorky. Maybe I'll ask her out...
For that kind of money, you could buy the biggest of the new Vespas, with enough money left over to fuel the thing for years. You could even afford an Aprilia Scarabeo. I'd buy one of those for urban travel before I bought a Segway...
How much you wanna bet that Kenneth Lay has excellent credit? Kozlowski probably does, too. That pretty much shoots your argument, does it not? Oh wait, Lay only fleeced the shareholders of Enron, not the company itself, after all, how can you steal from a company that never made any money?
That being said, credit checks are probably irrelevant to job performance, I had a tax lien once, and it shows up on my credit report and it's definitely a ding, but a lot of the bad credit stuff I have is from a while ago when I was young and irresponsible. A credit check wouldn't be so bad as long as I knew that the person examining it knew what they were looking at.
And the one where Lisa drinks the water at the Duff Gardens "It's a small world" ride and hallucinates madly. The writers definitely knew what they were talking about there, with those tracers...
I was developing web-based HR apps with our own home-made scripting language similar to ASP/PHP in 1995, so this can't possibly be right. I should send the white papers, etc. to them to illustrate prior art.
Hmmm... Maybe I'll do that.
Pretty much all bolt-action rifles work this way, it makes them easier to clean. Yes, you could always remove the slide on your automatic pistol, or the cylinder on your revolver, too, but then you might as well just throw the pieces at your attacker.
It's not that they're dumb, they're just not thinking. Check out this article this article in Esquire.
They come up with these things, not having any idea about how they're going to implement it, or whether they will implement it at all. If it sounds good, and makes them look good, they're for it.
For many of the folks in the administration, government simply cannot ever do anything good for anyone. The only thing the government is good for is keeping track of who's saying what about you, and bombing the hell out of countries so piss-poor and beaten that they can't possibly fight back.
You cannot, under any circumstances, own an automatic weapon
This is, for all intents and purposes, also true in the US. In order to possess a fully automatic, or 'selective fire' firearm you will need a Class III license, which are issued by the ATF only after close (I mean very close) scrutiny. A regular joe stands virtually no chance of being approved for this type of license. The only people who get them are private training agencies, the kinds of people who train cops and such. After that, you will be subject to regular checks by ATF agents. Class III licenses are also very expensive.
I don't know about other states, but in CA in order to buy a handgun, you must take and pass a safety test, and be over 21 years old.
First, I should say that I own guns, most of family members have owned them, and I've pretty much grown up with them. I am also a 'liberal', and I no incompatibility with these two points of view. I believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms of any type, within reasonable limits. I don't see a reason for private citizens to own selective fire (what the military uses) firearms. I disagree with the term 'assault weapon', because it's basically meaningless and it's code for 'scary looking'.
First, the problem is not guns per se, but violence and violent crime. The causes of these are well known: poverty and economic and social injustice. You can pull all the guns off the streets, but it won't do a damn bit of good unless the underlying causes are addressed. I don't think you could ever argue that guns cause people to be violent, or that someone is more likely to commit a crime simply because they obtain a gun. The logic isn't "Gee, I have this gun, now I have to think up a crime to commit." The logic is really "I want to commit some crimes, so I should get a gun."
Gun control is not totally odious either. In California, in order to buy a hand gun, you need to obtain a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate which you get by taking a test similar to the test you take to get a driver's license. There's a ten day waiting period for all purchases (including gun show purchases), and you undergo a background check. These are all reasonable to me.
There is one other point that I'd like to make. A lot of people who advocate gun control have so little knowledge about what the process is to obtain a gun, and what you can and cannot legally buy, that it hardly advances their case. Every time I hear some shrill advocate talk about 'automatic weapons in the hands of children', I cringe. Likewise for the old saw about someone going around the corner to a gun shop and walking out of there the same day with a gun to kill their wife. It just doesn't happen. If you're going to advocate a position, it's really a good idea to understand the topic you're discussing, otherwise, people like me who know what the deal is just think you're an idiot.
Black market firearms are a problem, and if law enforcement had the the resources to go after illegal gun dealers like they go after drug users, the problem would be well on its way to being fixed.
Ratko Mladich isn't exactly a free man...
More important than large amounts of cash are large chunks of voters. These groups can deliver votes, and when you have only 30% of the electorate actually voting, these groups, when they turn out, have a disproportionate impact, which is why politicians bend over for them.
Well, they probably didn't do it themselves, ya know. They obviously hired someone to make their site, who should have known better...
There's no product/service available at the site linked to...
Huh? There's no 'there' there...
Do you mean now, or at some point in the future?
So basically anyone who doesn't share your views is a traitor? Do you even know what treason is? You don't mess around with words like that. If you told that to my face, I believe you'd be picking your teeth up off the ground one by one. I believe that what the administration is doing is wrong, but I would never accuse them of treason. To oppose what they want to do is called *dissent*, not treason.
Are you even going to try to address the points I've managed to bring up? Or are you just going to call me names? If you can't handle yourself in a debate, don't engage in one.
So, I take it that you'll be joining our armed forces soon right? Or are you going to develop a bum knee? Anal cysts like your hero Rush? Or will you go through what Tom DeLay did and try to join up, only to be denied a spot because minorities are taking up the available slots. I guess you could always join the Air National Guard and then not bother to show up... Perhaps you have 'other priorities' like Mr. Cheney?
You disgust me. I did my time in the Navy (USS John A Moore, FFG 19) , and what these people are doing has nothing to do with defending this country, and everything to do with lining their own pockets. If they were truly interested in defending this country, how come Osama Bin Laden still lives? My colleagues in the Armed Services didn't join up to preserve Exxon's bottom line.
I don't want to hear you, or Limbaugh or freakin' Saxby Chambliss ever talk about 'defending' this country, since they were obviously too chicken shit to toddle on down to the recruiter and so much as join the fucking National Guard.
So, can you illustrate for us liberal idiots why supply-side economics works, even though it doesn't?
Perhaps you can explain to us how the establishment clause in the constitution doesn't mean what the Supreme Court says it means?
Can you tell me why the Republican party works to drive down voter turn-out via attack ads? (Here's a clue: if everyone voted, they'd never get elected dog catcher, let alone president)
Do you know who Richard Mellon Scaife is, and what he spends his money on?
Could you tell us exactly, in one sentence, what Bill Clinton did that warranted an impeachment? (The following are not acceptable answers: Anything having to do with consensual sex, character, dead people in Arkansas, foolish real estate investments)
Also, I didn't realize that Rush was a deep political thinker. Funny, I don't remember reading any of his work while studying political science.
I would also add at this point, that conservatives have valid points, and there are some conservative thinkers that have interesting and possibly workable ideas. However, Limbaugh is not one of them. If you're going to run around spouting conservative ideas, at least get some better role models like Bill Buckley, John Dean and William Safire. Thoughtful, intelligent conservatives willing to engage in a real debate further your cause much more than people like Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly who can't handle it when people disagree with them.
I got that beat. I had a '67 1800s with 750K+ miles on it, original engine and transmission. I gave it a valve job, and when I had the head off, I measured the cylinders, and they were still at factory specs... They don't build 'em like that anymore. I recently drove a post-Ford Volvo, and found that the overall quality was just not as good as the pre-Ford models. Oh well...
Ok, troll, I'll bite. Check this one out: It's a FAQ, if your dittohead mind can get around it...
Well, if you want some pro-Bush reporting, you can always check out NewsMax, or National Review Online. Salon is definitely left of center. Socialist? Perhaps, but considering that I've never met a so-called "conservative" who could actually give a definition of socialism other than "it's what the democrats want, and it's really bad."
I'm sick and tired of liberals being brow-beaten into agreeing with the conservatives simply because conservatives start screaming about Clinton and blow jobs and 'liberal media bias', and are made to apologize for not wanting to turn the country into a brutal theocracy based on 'merit' and the thoroughly debunked supply-side economics...
There's this news channel called Fox News, which, while claiming to be fair and balanced, is nothing but right-wing propaganda. I'll bet that anything that doesn't reinforce your obviously right wing views is considered by you to be 'liberal', and therefore bad, even if it's simply corporate centrist infotainment.
Limbaugh? You're a dittohead? I give up. There's no getting through to fools like you.
Ummm.. Have you ever actually read any of the articles in salon, or are you just going by what you've read at NewsMax?
Are you seriously suggesting that Rush, Ollie North, and the other right wing guys have anything to offer other than attacking? During Clinton's presidency, all they did was attack, all the time screaming about Clinton's sex life? I've haven't read much in Salon that can truly be classified as an 'attack'. Criticism is different than an attack. Read Arianna Huffington's column, you'll get alternatives, not just attacks...