War With Iraq

[Emma]

And naturally, Bush's motivations for this war have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with;

-the rise by 35% in the number of unemployed people since he took office
-the elimination of a $281 billion surplus since his term began; the US now has a deficit of $187 billion
-a stock market drop of 34% since Jan 2001
-a further 1.4 million people without health insurance (total of 41m Americans with no cover at all)
- the elimination of 2,000,000 jobs since he took office

among other things. No, no, Bush would never use a pointless and potentially Armageddon-causing war to make people forget about the pig's ear he has made of his presidency so far.

Naptime's over, America.

[splittter]

"Don’t confuse military aid for humanitarian; he is famous for accepting humanitarian aid and using it for other things."

I'm not ... I said military aid and I meant it ... guns, artillery and CIA training sounds more military than humanitarian to me.

"In either case, why are you defending Saddam? Does that justify his attacks?"

Explanations are not justifications ... I'm not defencing Saddam, and I don't appreciate intentional misunderstanding to try and make points

"How can we contain him?"

What have we been doing since the gulf war?

"It would be great if we could, but we’ve been trying for the past six years and yet he still has a weapons program."

Which was reduced greatly during the time of inspections by their own admission ... and hasn't been used in that time ... that is containment.

"I may be wrong, but the last time the UN invaded Iraq the region did not experience any major destabilization"

I think kensson's points answer this more than adequately ... it was only through a more liberal than normal israeli administration that it wasn't extremely bad ... the israeli administration at the moment has no restraint whatsoever, and has proved time and again it would rather make a military point than do something constructive.

"Furthermore, why do you care more about what Middle Eastern countries think of us over the direct and immediate safety of your own countrymen/women?"

I neither care for my own countrymen nor innocent iraqi's nor anyone else more or less ... as far as I'm concerned they're all worth trying to not kill equally.

"... don’t make the mistake of equating all terrorists to Muslims."

Again please read what I write before making, quite frankly, offensive accusations ... the war on Iraq is couched in terms of the war on global terrorism ... not all terrorists are moslem (I can't beleive I now have to state that obvious point), but to approach the actions of groups we affiliate with al-qaida without understanding that their motives are bound up with their interpretation of their religion would be silly.

"Call me selfish but I would rather see some innocent Iraqi’s suffer an invasion than us or one of our allies suffer a small pox outbreak or even worse a nuclear warhead."

Read your own dossier ... Iraq has at the present time no misslies than can reach more than 100 miles from his border, apart from up to 12? (maybe a bit more, certainly no more than 20) old, crappy scuds which have the range they had in the last war ... he has no nuclear capability, and a reduced chemical and biological capability from the last war ... certainly if he used what he has that would be bad enough, but can anyone come up with a sensible scenario where he would without being attacked?

"We can’t afford to keep a selfish, violent dictator in power that’s soul motivation is to develop weapons of mass destruction."

His soul motivation is to stay in power ... and it isn't a question of being able to leave him in power ... it is a question of what potive actions we can achieve, how much blood we are prepared to have on our hands and what realistic threat he offers.

"I don’t think you would disagree when I say, if he were to develop these weapons, he would not hesitate for a second to use them for his own personal gain."

I do agree ... and when would saddam personally gain from such action given todays situation ... now, when from his actions we can clearly see he's trying to appear as nice as possible to avoid getting wiped out ... or during our campaign when he knows his regime is doomed, and his life is forfeit?

[Guest]

So what are we to do kennson? You people love to criticize an invasion on Iraq. But you never pose a viable solution. How can we afford to leave Saddam in power without disarming him? Bottom line is we can’t.

-“The last thing he'll want to do is give the USA a proper reason to invade Iraq.”

He may end up giving that proper reason after all. Add this attempt on diplomacy to the list. You can’t say the US and UK haven’t exhausted themselves with a diplomatic approach.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/ ... index.html


-“There are no proven links between Iraq and al-Qa'eda.”

Actually there are, he has recently given some al-Qa’eda officials safe haven as well as medical treatment. I also remember hearing about meetings between the Iraq regime and al-Qa’eda prior to 9/11.


Emma,

Do you do any research at all? Do you have an understanding of modern economics, better yet watch TV or pick up a newspaper?

Let me simplify this as much as I can. The US economy was on a downward spiral while Clinton was still in office. Economies have natural cycles they progress in; they constantly fluctuate and have throughout US history. Oh, then there was that little incident on 9/11 that had assisted the economy to plummet. That one ring a bell?

This is your second post that is ridiculously prophetic and over the top.
Naptime’s over, Emma. Or should I say playtime.

[kensson]

[s]Unregisted User wrote on 15:01, 22nd Oct 2002:
So what are we to do kennson?

That'd be Kensson, then?

Well, might I suggest letting the weapons inspectors do their job? At least see whether Iraq are prepared to disarm, without trying to bully as a first resort?

He may end up giving that proper reason after all. Add this attempt on diplomacy to the list. You can’t say the US and UK haven’t exhausted themselves with a diplomatic approach.

Actually, I can. The Iraqi delegation and the UN weapons team met; the US are currently blocking, not Iraq.

Actually there are, he has recently given some al-Qa’eda officials safe haven as well as medical treatment. I also remember hearing about meetings between the Iraq regime and al-Qa’eda prior to 9/11.

The impression I got from the news report was that one al-Qa'eda suspect had been treated in a Baghdad hospital, without any further details. It seems plausible that suspects in (say) Germany, the UK and the US have also treated suspects.

I won't even dignify hearsay with the contempt it deserves.

The US economy was on a downward spiral while Clinton was still in office. Economies have natural cycles they progress in; they constantly fluctuate and have throughout US history.

I imagine massive tax cuts for the wealthy and a defence budget which would pay for clean water and sanitation for everyone on the planet four times over would have nothing to do with it, then?

The US is unpopular in the Arab world for many reasons, not least its tendency to bomb at the slightest excuse. Bombing Iraq will do nothing at all - nada - not a sausage - to reduce the terrorist threat to the US.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Actually, Bush has probably taken a leaf out of Ronald Reagan's book and decided to do some Reagonimics. Once that's destroyed the economy, he'll probably blame it on Saddam. As the Onion suggests...

[Carolyn]

Exactly. I must say I Agree.

[Guest]

-“the reasoning is quite simple ... saddams major evils were commited at a time when he recieved military aid from lots of people ... he attacked Israel when we attacked him.”

Ok, so what is your point? It’s ok to attack when when you receive military aid or attack countries that haven’t attacked you? I’m sorry, I’ve re-read this 10 times now and it still seems like you are justifying Saddam’s attacks, in essence defending. I would suggest re-wording your points rather than criticizing people for reading them correctly.

-“Which was reduced greatly during the time of inspections by their own admission ... and hasn't been used in that time ... that is containment.”

That’s your containment? Lets “reduce” his weapons program. News flash Splitter: It only takes one nuclear device to kill millions of people. You are suggesting to band-aid a situation that requires far more attention.

-“ I think kensson's points answer this more than adequately”

His point is valid and I agree special attention needs to be focused in this area if an invasion on Iraq were to commence.

-“ I neither care for my own countrymen nor innocent iraqi's nor anyone else more or less ... as far as I'm concerned they're all worth trying to not kill equally.”

Are you going to tell that to the Itola and his wife, the hundred thousands Kurds that were slaughtered, the thousands of people that died in Iran or Kuwait, the thousands of civilians, military, and humanitarian workers that are missing now in Iraq? Or better yet, are you going to tell that to those who end up suffering a nuclear or biological weapon going off in their backyard?

-“Read your own dossier ... Iraq has at the present time no misslies than can reach more than 100 miles from his border, apart from up to 12?”

My quote from October 14th.
He is currently developing missiles that could easily reach us and deliver biological weapons or even worse nuclear, which he is also currently trying to develop.

-“I do agree ... and when would saddam personally gain from such action given todays situation ... now, when from his actions we can clearly see he's trying to appear as nice as possible to avoid getting wiped out”

I don’t know Splitter; I don’t pretend to know how this psychopath thinks, that’s one more reason he should be removed. He’s trying to appear as nice as possible because he knows he is guilty as hell.

I think that everyone would agree that:
He has been illusive with his weapons programs from the start. He is determined to build weapons of mass destruction. He has a violent and uncompassionate past. He would not hesitate to use or share these weapons with terrorists once he’s developed them.

Should we sit back and wait for this to happen and be reactive? Or would it make more sense to prevent such capabilities and be proactive? I for one would rather see his regime topple and these weapon plants destroyed, whether it be done by diplomatic terms or if need be by force.

[Guest]

-“Well, might I suggest letting the weapons inspectors do their job? At least see whether Iraq are prepared to disarm, without trying to bully as a first resort?”

Oh yes, that’s right, because that’s worked so well in the past. Oh by the way, did you miss the link I put in my last post?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/ ... index.html

-“He may end up giving that proper reason after all. Add this attempt on diplomacy to the list. You can’t say the US and UK haven’t exhausted themselves with a diplomatic approach.”

How many times do you try diplomatic terms? You can only use this “stop or I’ll say stop again!” approach for so long.

-“ Actually, I can. The Iraqi delegation and the UN weapons team met; the US are currently blocking, not Iraq.”

Did you happen to look into why? Let me point out some reasons. Currently Iraq has not agreed to allow weapon inspectors passage to all facilities in Iraq. Ex: His personal palaces that encompass hundreds of miles. He hasn’t agreed to let inspectors make surprise inspections where and when they deem fit. The US also wants to add clauses holding Saddam accountable if he refuses to disarm. Don’t you think these are viable reasons due to Saddam’s illusive past?

-“ I imagine massive tax cuts for the wealthy and a defence budget which would pay for clean water and sanitation for everyone on the planet four times over would have nothing to do with it, then?”

Everyone received tax cuts, not just the rich. And the defense budget was increased due to a viable threat, remember that little terrorist attack on 9/11? I didn’t realize the US was responsible for sanitation for everyone on the planet. The economy dramatically dropped after 9/11, not after the tax cuts, and not after the new defense budget.

-“ The US is unpopular in the Arab world for many reasons, not least its tendency to bomb at the slightest excuse. Bombing Iraq will do nothing at all - nada - not a sausage - to reduce the terrorist threat to the US.”

Oh, I see where the problem lies now. The US doesn’t want to bomb Iraq to reduce the terrorist threat. In actuality it’s the US and UK that want Saddam to disarm, and halt his nuclear and biological development programs. If they can’t do this diplomatically they want Saddam to be held accountable for his actions, just like every other responsible adult in this world. Get it?

[splittter]

"Ok, so what is your point? It’s ok to attack when when you receive military aid or attack countries that haven’t attacked you?"

No

"I’m sorry, I’ve re-read this 10 times now and it still seems like you are justifying Saddam’s attacks, in essence defending. I would suggest re-wording your points rather than criticizing people for reading them correctly."

My point is, as it has ever been, that since we started paying close attention to iraq, and not supporting saddam, his weapons capability has declined ... his weapons development capability has declined and he hasn't used any chemical or biological weapons ... he has only had the chance to start developing again seriouly since the inspections stopped, and he has already agreed to re-admit them with a bigger mandate than before.

"Are you going to tell that to the Itola and his wife, the hundred thousands Kurds that were slaughtered, the thousands of people that died in Iran or Kuwait, the thousands of civilians, military, and humanitarian workers that are missing now in Iraq? Or better yet, are you going to tell that to those who end up suffering a nuclear or biological weapon going off in their backyard?"

We could both list casualties till the cows come home ... each one is apalling ... you somehow believe that saddam is on the verge of lashing out using weapons of mass destrcution ... that point of view simply isn't valid.

"My quote from October 14th.
He is currently developing missiles that could easily reach us and deliver biological weapons or even worse nuclear, which he is also currently trying to develop."

So you're an expert on these things now ... guys, unregistered user has spoken ... again from the dossier which presumably makes the strongest case, the evidence for this is sattelite pictures showing facilities rebuilt on sites that were used in the past, and what could be a missile test launcher, which seems to be bigger than what we've seen in iraq before ... some of which sites were opened to western journalists who didn't see anything untoward ... that doesn't mean he is ... doesn't mean he isn't ... we could send in inspectors to see ... or we could bomb some civilians.

"I don’t know Splitter; I don’t pretend to know how this psychopath thinks"

Well leave it to people who are trying to understand the way the man thinks then ... dissmissing people in power as unreadable psychopaths is no way to try and deal with the threat they offer ... as kensson has already pointed out when looked at from his point of view a lot of saddam's actions make perfect sense.

"He would not hesitate to use or share these weapons with terrorists once he’s developed them."

The attempts to prove a link between saddam and terrorist organisations have been laughable ... the best they've been able to do is cite a kurdish organisation that operate out of northern Iraq, an area over which saddam has no control thanks to our own no-fly zone. If you're sitting on something the us/uk government haven't told us, by all means share it.

"Should we sit back and wait for this to happen and be reactive? Or would it make more sense to prevent such capabilities and be proactive?"

bombing things is not the only proactive action we can take ... as I mentioned previously one of the really disgusting thing that often happens in these debates is to paint peaceful means as 'sitting around talking nonsense, slowly', given it only takes a few seconds to drop a bomb on a hospital. The information the us/uk gov puts out points to clear evidence that weapons inspections were shutting down saddam's weapons programs and did not allow him to carry out research elsewhere, and in that time he did not retalliate.

If you're set on having a good old war, then theres not much I can do ... but don't try and make out its the only way ... indeed even a way of doing some good.

Sending in inspectors isn't going to be easy ... he's not going to welcome them with open arms, and lead them straight to his stockpiles ... if anyone thinks that that is even an option then they're idiotic ... another tactic used to discredit peaceful negotiations is to set on them impossible targets, and hen use the failure as a reason against them ... but read that dossier and tell me it doesn't paint a picture of weapons inspections that reduced his capability, stopped his development and contained the usage of weapons of mass destruction by saddam hussein.

Nuclear weapons exist all over the world ... I wish to hell they didn't, but they do ... and what stops them being used isn't war, but people and relationship management on a grand scale. How should we stop pakistan using its against india, attack the regime that developed them ... I mean why the hell would they develop them if they didn't plan to use them? Musharef too has a line in elections with only one candidate ... obviously that would be absurd ... why, not because it wouldn't be fantastic to have a peaceful, democratic regime in pakistan that doesn't have persistent links to terrorist organisations, but because to do that would cause more harm than good ... way way more ... get the idea?

[kensson]

> Oh yes, that?s right, because that?s worked so well in the past.

And bombing countries to bits also has a proven record for installing better rulers?

> How many times do you try diplomatic terms? You can only use this ?stop or I?ll say stop again!? approach for so long.

In the last few months, Iraq has been co-operating steadily more. As I've said before, Saddam Hussein wants to cling on to power, and is likely to do as much as is necessary to avoid an invasion.

> Did you happen to look into why? Let me point out some reasons. Currently Iraq has not agreed to allow weapon inspectors passage to all facilities in Iraq. Ex: His personal palaces that encompass hundreds of miles. He hasn?t agreed to let inspectors make surprise inspections where and when they deem fit. The US also wants to add clauses holding Saddam accountable if he refuses to disarm. Don?t you think these are viable reasons due to Saddam?s illusive past?

Saddam has an imaginary past? I presume you mean elusive.

In answer to your point, the idea of diplomacy is to keep talking until everyone is in agreement. Iraq is currently moving in the right direction, so far as I can see.

> Everyone received tax cuts, not just the rich.

From businessweek.com:

"According to a new analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Children's Defense Fund, in 2010 the tax cuts passed by Congress last year will shower $121 billion in tax relief on the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers, who will have average incomes of around $1.5 million. That's more than half of the total tax relief planned for that year. By contrast, the poorest 20% of American taxpayers will receive about 1% of the total relief. On average, the Bush tax cuts will add a paltry $98 to their discretionary income--clearly not enough for that ticket to the middle class trumpeted by the Bush Administration as a rationale for cutting taxes in the first place."

> And the defense budget was increased due to a viable threat, remember that little terrorist attack on 9/11?

Um, how exactly would more soldiers have stopped September 11th? And how well did they do in stopping the bomb in Bali? Perhaps a little more funding for intelligence (and I'll refrain, for a change, from the obvious cheap jibe at this point) would make such things less likely.

Surely... no, they wouldn't. Surely they wouldn't start a war just to try and justify the defence budget, would they?

> I didn?t realize the US was responsible for sanitation for everyone on the planet.

Perhaps if you read that back, you'll understand why the USA is so unpopular in so many places.

> The economy dramatically dropped after 9/11, not after the tax cuts, and not after the new defense budget.

The drop from a large surplus to a massive deficit seem to add up to the same kind of numbers, though. And let's not blame the dodgy accounting practices of the major contributors to the Bush campaign, eh, that'd just be picky.

> Oh, I see where the problem lies now. The US doesn?t want to bomb Iraq to reduce the terrorist threat. In actuality it?s the US and UK that want Saddam to disarm, and halt his nuclear and biological development programs.

So how about disarming Pakistan, say, which definitely has nuclear bombs, a military government, an ongoing conflict and has definitely housed al-Qa'eda fighters? How about Israel? How about the US setting a precedent by getting rid of its own weapons of mass destruction?

> If they can?t do this diplomatically they want Saddam to be held accountable for his actions, just like every other responsible adult in this world. Get it?

Oh, that's where I'm getting confused. I thought they wanted to illegally topple another head of state. I've obviously misinterpreted the phrase "regime change".

[kensson]

Splittter: please stop plagiarising my points just as I write them. )

[Guest]

-“he has only had the chance to start developing again seriouly since the inspections stopped, and he has already agreed to re-admit them with a bigger mandate than before.”

Yes, that was six years ago, that’s a pretty long time don’t you think? He has only agreed to the original terms of the Council Resolution 687 act not some imaginary mandate and has not been open to any further discussion. The original term prevents inspectors commencing surprise inspections, searching all locations and holds no one accountable if the Saddam regime once again becomes elusive.

-“We could both list casualties till the cows come home ... each one is apalling ... you somehow believe that saddam is on the verge of lashing out using weapons of mass destrcution ... that point of view simply isn't valid. “

I’m painting you a picture of Saddam’s last 20 years to make the point that he is fully capable of using weapons of mass destruction which is completely valid unless you are blind. Were you aware of his plan to plant a nuclear device on a ship, sail it into a port in or around Tel Aviv, and detonate it? Probably not.

-“Well leave it to people who are trying to understand the way the man thinks then ... dissmissing people in power as unreadable psychopaths is no way to try and deal with the threat they offer ... as kensson has already pointed out when looked at from his point of view a lot of saddam's actions make perfect sense.”

What is wrong with you? Seriously… You think his actions make perfect sense? Are you a prison inmate somewhere?

-“bombing things is not the only proactive action we can take ... “
When did I say it was?

-“If you're set on having a good old war, then theres not much I can do ... but don't try and make out its the only way ... indeed even a way of doing some good. “

Let me once again remind you I stated a diplomatic approach is desired over a military one. But in either case these weapons of mass destruction do not belong in the hands of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam has played games with the UN for the past 10+ years. He has made the weapons inspections a joke by stalling, misleading, bugging inspectors rooms, and disallowing them to go to certain locations. It would be extremely safe to say that he is pursuing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. His last 20 years of dictatorship has been filled with horrific and violent events, which includes 3 unprovoked attacks on neighboring countries. You cannot nor will not convince me that any other country has that same type of recent past. Because of his recent past we need to take extra pre-cautions on preventing this man to have weapons of mass destruction. And if diplomatic terms do not work to remove these capabilities from his hands, military action is needed. The US, UK, as well as Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector are currently pressing the issue to allow inspectors to go wherever, whenever they deem necessary. As well as holding Saddam’s regime accountable if they are once again, become non-cooperative. If Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector who has lead the inspections in the past and is extremely familiar with Saddam’s regime believes this should be done, shouldn’t we? Iraq has continued to refuse to these terms and that is what is holding up the inspections.

Kensson,

I no longer wish to water down the topic on hand with Rhetoric about how much the US spends on defense nor its current economy. Lets try to stay focused to the discussion on hand.

-“Oh, that's where I'm getting confused. I thought they wanted to illegally topple another head of state. I've obviously misinterpreted the phrase "regime change".

Yes your right, you have obviously misinterpreted it.

[kensson]

Oh, silly me.

[hr]My policy towards the USA remains one of regime change

[splittter]

I'm chasing my own tail ... am I the one who's posts are a mixture of insults, hysterical fear mongering and a repetition of things you've said many times before.

Your last post, baseless rantings aside, simply repeated your point that saddam has not fully co-operated with the weapons inspectors ... I adressed that specifically when I last wrote anything here.

I'm well aware that he didn't ... however you have had nothing to say to the fact that weapons inspectors did work ... you haven't disputed, because it is plain for anyone to read, that ... well I'm not going to repeat myself, I'll just quote me:

"but read that dossier and tell me it doesn't paint a picture of weapons inspections that reduced his capability, stopped his development and contained the usage of weapons of mass destruction by saddam hussein."

Further your only answer to people pointing out that the only concievable way saddam would use his weapons from now on is if we attack is to try and paint him as some sort of cartoon psychopath ... unreadable, unknowable and capable of being dealt with by simplistic rhetoric ... and no, I'm not in prison ... I haven't a clue what you were going on about there ... but please, don't bother to explain.

[Guest]

-“I'm chasing my own tail ... am I the one who's posts are a mixture of insults, hysterical fear mongering and a repetition of things you've said many times before. “
I insinuated that you are going in circles. Meaning you go from saying the world would be a better place without Saddam to I understand where he is coming from and back again. Yes, I’ve purposely repeated things because you so conveniently don’t address them when they are the basis of why Saddam must be handled so strictly. In essence, you can’t refute the statements I have made.

-”Your last post, baseless rantings aside, simply repeated your point that saddam has not fully co-operated with the weapons inspectors ... I adressed that specifically when I last wrote anything here. “
-“I'm well aware that he didn't ... however you have had nothing to say to the fact that weapons inspectors did work ... you haven't disputed, because it is plain for anyone to read, that ... well I'm not going to repeat myself, I'll just quote me:but read that dossier and tell me it doesn't paint a picture of weapons inspections that reduced his capability, stopped his development and contained the usage of weapons of mass destruction by saddam hussein." “
I did address it and again you had nothing to say back. I repeat: that’s your containment? Lets “reduce” his weapons program. News flash Splitter: It only takes one nuclear device to kill millions of people. You are suggesting to band-aid a situation that requires far more attention. In no way did the current doctrine stop his development, he has hundreds of miles of highly guarded areas that have never been inspected and Saddam has refused access to these locations. Furthermore, he never allowed inspectors to go where they wanted to go when they wanted too, and there is no accountability for all the excuses and games he’s played. Hans Blix the head weapons inspector agrees with the UK/US that the current terms are too lenient for Saddam. Why don’t you?

-“Further your only answer to people pointing out that the only conceivable way saddam would use his weapons from now on is if we attack is to try and paint him as some sort of cartoon psychopath ... unreadable, unknowable and capable of being dealt with by simplistic rhetoric ... and no, I'm not in prison ... I haven't a clue what you were going on about there ... but please, don't bother to explain. “
Well-said Stalin, I mean Splitter. This comment concludes you pathetic blind view of Saddams recent past. Too me his past has painted him as a cartoon psychopath, not me. My problem with your posts is you rectify the horrific things he has done or just brush them under the table and say, he’s a nice guy now, lets give him a nuke. I’m a realist not a liberal, this man in now way deserves to have weapons of mass destruction under his fingertips. Why would we ever think that Saddam would ever want to use these weapons on another country? He’s had such a peaceful reign of terror.

[splittter]

take a deep breath, calm down, and let me know when you can continue a discussion without accusing me of

1) being like stalin
2) excusing saddam for his past actions

I can't believe an intelligent reading of my posts would lead someone to think that ... usually I'd try and give someone the benefit of the doubt, and try and dispell whatever mis-impression they have got.

"Thats your containment splittter!"

yes, it is ... I think most people out there are able to understand what I'm saying ... you seemingly are not ... at this point I don't care

yours as far as I can tell is to attack the holder of weapons of mass destrcution, who if we are to believe your image would loose them at a moments notice with little or no provocation ... mine has a proven track record of success ... yours seems a little left field.

bye bye, and good luck ... stalin, oops Splittter.

[Guest]

-"Thats your containment splittter!"

You obviously don’t have 20/20 vision. My quote actually read
I repeat: that’s your containment?
Not sure where that exclamation mark came from.

-”I can't believe an intelligent reading of my posts would lead someone to think that ... usually I'd try and give someone the benefit of the doubt, and try and dispell whatever mis-impression they have got.”

This of course is commenting on how I accused you of justifying Saddam’s actions. The following are your quotes from your past posts.

Quote 1:
“when looked at from his point of view a lot of saddam's actions make perfect sense.”
Quote 2:
“the reasoning is quite simple ... saddams major evils were commited at a time when he recieved military aid from lots of people ... he attacked Israel when we attacked him.”

Um, yes, my accusations still stand.

-“yours as far as I can tell is to attack the holder of weapons of mass destrcution, who if we are to believe your image would loose them at a moments notice with little or no provocation ... mine has a proven track record of success ... yours seems a little left field.”

You really need to read these posts better. I suggested a diplomatic approach first. Let me once again repeat myself:
Because of his recent past we need to take extra pre-cautions on preventing this man to have weapons of mass destruction. And if diplomatic terms do not work to remove these capabilities from his hands, military action is needed.

Proven track record of success? ß (That’s a question mark)
You call not having inspectors in Iraq for the past six years a success? I sincerely apologize Splitter, I just have called you incompetent not Stalin.

Hey, by the way, you never replied to my comments about Hans Blix. That leads me to believe you have no rebuttal.

Here are some of your other quotes:
-“So you're an expert on these things now ... guys, unregistered user has spoken”

It apparently doesn’t matter to you even when experts do speak.. i.e. Good old Hansy Blix.

-“Well, might I suggest letting the weapons inspectors do their job?
Hans Blix is trying, but so far unsuccessfully because of Saddam’s unwillingness to allow inspectors access to all his suspected chemical/development sites.

I’m sorry; I’ll stop picking on the blind, incompetent, hypocrite.

[kensson]

Unregistered User seems very keen on Hans Blix's comments, but ignores Scott Ritter's - someone who actually has experience as a weapons inspector in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 00,00.html

Moreover, I feel it's a bit rich of him (I presume it's a him) to accuse splittter of not responding to his points. If he likes, I'll go back through my last half-dozen posts and make a list of arguments ignored by UU. Of course, that assumes he lacks the intelligence to do so himself.

[Al]

I have a theory. My theory is that "unregistered user" is an idiot. Actually, it's more of a fact than a theory.

[hr]"Shelley and jazz and lieder and love and hymn-tunes and day returns too soon...."

[splittter]

"I’m sorry; I’ll stop picking on the blind, incompetent, hypocrite"

Pick away ... as I had hoped to make clear before I'm not going to bother debating with someone who can't do it without insulting people ... further I've said everything I want to say. If you want to see whats taken place as a victory for yourself fine ... I'm happy to let readers make their own mind up.