Fear

[khirkhib]

By invoking fear, by saying their could be attacks on on the election day is another attempt to lower voter turn-out.

[khirkhib]

1. HUH.  Why do you think the UN inspectors (and the whole world) wanted to keep investigating the country for weapons before launching an attack.  

2.  The US govenment had stronger orginzation ties with Al Queda than the Iraq government, heck we set up shop and trained them.  Sadam was no ally to Al Queda because they were a threat to his power.

3.  He was seeking.  He was a nut and he would have never been able to do it with sanctions in place.


And on the nuclear thing from you MODU the inspectors new about the radioactive waste dump.  I don't know how that was generated but it may have been medical and practical uses and the UN was just trying to find the approriate way to dispose of it, which is hard enough in our country and so must be extremely difficult in that area of the world.

Edited: OK i didn't know that but it certainly goes to show that we were capable of preventing them from developing any nuclear technology.

[khirkhib]

1. HUH.  Why do you think the UN inspectors (and the whole world) wanted to keep investigating the country for weapons before launching an attack.  

2.  The US govenment had stronger orginzation ties with Al Queda than the Iraq government, heck we set up shop and trained them.  Sadam was no ally to Al Queda because they were a threat to his power.

3.  He was seeking.  He was a nut and he would have never been able to do it with sanctions in place.

1- If they thought they didn't have them why inspect?  They believed they were there and they believed Saddam was playing games with the inspectors.    If they thought nothing was there why spend the money on inspectors?  Just declare he is WMD free.

2- The US ties you mention were long since severed.  The Iraqi ties were current and on going.  They provided trianing and a safe haven.

3- He did quite a good job with sanctions in place, actually.

1. They suspected that he might have weopons and so they were  investigating to make sure he didn't.  They didn't want to invade a country's sovreignty on a mistake and had the inspections been allowed to continue either their suspecians would have been verified and the world united would have removed Sadam or they would have found, as was the case, that they didn't have weopons and they would have continued making sure that Sadam couldn't get those weopons (which he wasn't able to get under sanctions and the world could encourage the people to take control of their country so that the people can develop their own sense of national pride.  You should not go on a costly, unpredictiable, and dangerous  line of war on very vague and very wrong suspicians.

2.  The Iraqi ties were minor and their were stronger ties to Al Queda with organizations in the US than their were with Organizations or government in Iraq before the invasion.  You can not deny that Al Queda has a stronger presence in Iraq after the invasion than before.

3.  Hey he was a tyrant.  He was terrible.  We should have done more to make sure the Iraqi people were fed during the Santions.  Hell we should have helped the Shiite's who rose up and tried to take Saddam out when the time was right in the early 90s.  During the sanctions however Saddam was not able to make WMDs because the proof is in the pudding.  No weopons, no capability.

[khirkhib]

1. They suspected that he might have weopons and so they were  investigating to make sure he didn't.  They didn't want to invade a country's sovreignty on a mistake and had the inspections been allowed to continue either their suspecians would have been verified and the world united would have removed Sadam or they would have found, as was the case, that they didn't have weopons and they would have continued making sure that Sadam couldn't get those weopons (which he wasn't able to get under sanctions and the world could encourage the people to take control of their country so that the people can develop their own sense of national pride.  You should not go on a costly, unpredictiable, and dangerous  line of war on very vague and very wrong suspicians.

2.  The Iraqi ties were minor and their were stronger ties to Al Queda with organizations in the US than their were with Organizations or government in Iraq before the invasion.  You can not deny that Al Queda has a stronger presence in Iraq after the invasion than before.

3.  Hey he was a tyrant.  He was terrible.  We should have done more to make sure the Iraqi people were fed during the Santions.  Hell we should have helped the Shiite's who rose up and tried to take Saddam out when the time was right in the early 90s.  During the sanctions however Saddam was not able to make WMDs because the proof is in the pudding.  No weopons, no capability.

1- They were not suspicions, every nation with an intel report on Iraq said he had them, not that he might, but we're not sure.  Show me one nation that said he did not have them.

The inspectors did find violations of the sanctions, by the way.

2- Yes, there were and probably still are ties to organizations inside the US.  Many of them have been found and shut down.

Also, part of the putpose of the invasion was to bring more Al Queda members out into the open in Iraq rather than to other US interests where US civilians are more likely to be threatened.

3- You are trying to change the point.  He was seeking nuclear materials.  This is a verified fact now.

Also, the US is fully capable of producing weaponized small pox yet it is not.  Just because someone does not do something does not mean they cannot.

1.  Yes unconfirmed suspicions that were being investigated and further investigation would have found jack.  Because their was jack and I would have been fine with inspectors in there for 20 years if it meant that Sadam was not able to get weapons of mass destruction and 900 Americans were not dead.

2. See this is one of those reasons that you make as you go.  The thing is I don't know so much as it is drawing Al Queda to Iraq as it is the biggest marketing Bananza taht Al Queda has ever gotten.  These are new terrorirsts that were recruited after the war in Afghanistan.  Al Queda is growing because of the invasion of Iraq and the image that the US is projecting.

3.  And he is a nut job.  The point is he was not capable of more than pipe dreams.  

[khirkhib]

Hey we have to do all that we can to stop terrorism.    Terrorism is very bad and we should guard the ports, we should protect chemical plants and nuclear power plants, we should guard our borders and have prtoection is airports.  But we shouldn't drop the ball on everything else there are other things that are bad too, that kill americans, that are threats to our happiness and prosperity.  

I thought I would check the stats though to make sure.  The leading causes of death in 2001, the 15 causes that account for 83.4% of deaths were.

1) heart disease
2) cancer
3) stroke
4) lung disease
5) Accidents - unintentional including car accidents
6) diabetes
7) Influenza and pneumonia,
8) Alzheimer’s disease
9) kidney disease
10) Septicemia
11) suicide
12) liver disease and cirrhosis
13) Assault - homicide
14) Essential (primary) hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension), and


15) Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids - had to look this one up

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis is usually an occupational disease in which exposure to organic dusts, fungus, or molds leads to acute and then, over time, chronic lung disease. Exposure may also occur in the home, from fungus present in humidifiers, heating systems, and air conditioners. Some people may have hobbies that can lead to exposure, such as owning birds.

---------------------------------------------------------

So on assault homicide:

The 15 leading causes of death in 2001 remained what they were in 2000, although homicide changed places with hypertension, becoming the 13th leading cause of death in 2001 from the 14th in 2000. The increase in the rank of homicide was due to the addition of deaths that resulted from the September11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The dramatic rise in the homicide rate was primarily a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that added 2,926 certified resident deaths to this category. Without the additional deaths resulting from the terrorist attacks,the homicide rate would have increased by 3.4 percent.

You have .1% chance of dying in a terrorist attack.  That doesnt mean you don't do anything what it means is you take measures to protect yourself but you can't let yourself live in fear.

I mean 22,242 people died from poisoning (63.4% accidental and sates are closing poison hotlines because of lack of funds.) Basically your 10 times more likely to accidentally poison yourself.

Lets do everything we can about solving terrorist but I refuse to let the government make me cower.

More lives will be saved by researching stem cell research than our current and inadaquote protection against terrorists.

http:// [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf [/ur]

[khirkhib]

I am not saying terrorism is a minor threat.  I do think that we should do what we can to stop terrorists but we are not going about it the right way.  

In World War II we were United with the world.  the allies against the axis.  
Communism, Socialism and Capitalism united against Fascism

In the Cold War we were united with the world.  The 1st world against the second world (with most of the violence and death happening in the third)  Capitalism and Socialism against Communism

We are not united as a world against terrorists.  The coalition of the willing is a joke.   It isn't strong countries the enemy can change and like a hydra our attacks can make it stronger.  The US needs to unite the world against terrorism if we are going to win this war.  And if we don't we will only suffer more attacks.

[khirkhib]

Well I kind of would like to let this topic die now as we have other topics going on but I have to say that I have a very different take on how we won the Cold War.

First off it was NATO against the Eastern Bloc.

NATO was chatacterized by shared intelligence and decisions it was touchy at times but it was unified where as the Eastern Bloc was forced and only kept together by the USSR muscling Eastern Europeon countries.  Or more accurately Russia strong arming the other "nations" of the USSR and also the Eastern Europeon Countries.  Russia's biggest mistake was ruining their relationship with their strongest ally China. Russia was over-extended and forcing countries and their hopeful territories (much of the ME)  which only resulted in stagnating those econmies.  Independence and capitalism strengthened the economies on our side Japan and later South Korea, Western Europe and the US ecomonies went gang busters.  This create resentment in Eastern Europe and with USSR itself to through off the system.  Russia fell apart not because we threatened to build star wars (which doesn't work and I think puts us at a bigger risk because it makes us more likely to use nukes) but because they all wanted Levi's and Big Macs.  Free Trade beat Communism.  Free Capitalism with Socialistic Controls trounced a state that try to control industry with-out regard to the health and needs of its people.  

NATO was really Socially Progressive and Economically Consevative.

The USSR was very Socially Conservative in a way because they did not think of the Social needs  and using Econmically LIberal ideas that were not ready for prime time.  

They tried to start Marx's ideas about 200 years too early.  They tried to jump from a pre-industrial society to a post-post-post capitalistic democracy.

America learned a lot of lessons in the Guilded Age 1880 - 1900s.  The lessons that we learned were some of the lessons that helped us win the cold war.

[khirkhib]

Shira don't say shi* like that.  Niether Kerry nor Bush need nor want an attack either here or abroad.  Just saying that is sick.