Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Stop the fear.

    Turn off Fox News and chill. I'm not afraid of Iraq and I dont feel that the United States is entitled to judge any other country in terms of disarmament as long as it's "death through firearms" rate is over 100 times as high as in most other developed countries. If you took away the guns you could drop a nuke on a small city every year and still have more people living than with the current situation.

    The whole notion of Preemptive War is wrong. Secretary Rumsfeld says "Who would have help

      • If you took away the guns you could drop a nuke on a small city every year and still have more people living than with the current situation.

      Oversimplistic. New York City and Washington DC takes away all guns, yet gun crime is very high in these areas. I guess we just have to periodically search all homes and persons for guns and imprison anyone who has guns?

      • The whole notion of Preemptive War is wrong.

      We don't need to use preemption as a reason for this war. This is just a continuance of the Gul

      • Oversimplistic. New York City and Washington DC takes away all guns, yet gun crime is very high in these areas. I guess we just have to periodically search all homes and persons for guns and imprison anyone who has guns?

        I neither said it was easy, nor that it it could be achieved fast. (Besides id you can still drive to say New Jersey and buy your gun there bans in limited locations are pointless).

        I agree that you might not need preemption; however, if you wouldn't need it why would the administration p

          • I agree that you might not need preemption; however, if you wouldn't need it why would the administration put it forward?

          Did you not read what I said?

          Now may be a good time to do it because it also provides preemption. We must do it eventually, or the International community loses all credibility. Mad dictators like Saddam will have a green light to develop these weapons and invade their neighbors when there are few consequences.

          That's why.

          • There it is, the _Fear_.
            • Fear is a motivation we do lots of things.

              Fear is why we don't allow children to play with firearms or explosives.

              Fear is why we avoid viscious animals.

              Fear is why we don't put our hands on a hot stove.

              Fear is why we eliminate threats before they eliminate us.

              No serious person really doubts that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. The UNSCOM inspectors found them and they are still unaccounted for.

              No serious person doubts that Al Qaeda would like to use those sorts of weapons on the US.

              W

              • The UNSCOM inspectors found them and they are still unaccounted for.

                Hans Blix said they have NOT found weapons of mass destruction. He said they have found prohibited missles, and that they have found evidence of weapons that has not been explained away (such as unaccounted-for Anthrax and VX), but that they did not find actual weapons of mass destruction.
                • Hans Blix heads up the UNMOVIC inspectors. UNSCOM was decommissioned some years ago and performed the last Iraqi inspection regime before being kicked out after identifying or finding substantial evidence of many banned weapons, including tons of Anthrax, Botulinum toxin, VX nerve gas precursors [planetark.org]. Note also the reference in this article to the fact that there is substantial reason to believe that Iraq has smallpox virus and was experimenting with weaponizing it.

                  Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC inspectors are no [freerepublic.com]

                  • And pointing to the Free Republic as a source of information, is like someone on the Left pointing to the ISO's latest propaganda piece.

                    Its not very credible, and its not polite to do in mixed company :)
                      • And pointing to the Free Republic as a source of information, is like someone on the Left pointing to the ISO's latest propaganda piece.

                      It would be an Ad Hominem either way. A good way to distract from the facts at hand, but not very productive.

                      Is Jane's an acceptable source [janes.com]? The CBC [www.cbc.ca]? How about the Christian Science Monitor [csmonitor.com]?

                      This last source is particularly interesting. It goes into great depth about the challenges of performing inspections. It can take years to find anything and it's doubtful tha

                    • I think it would be cool if Jane's could do one their deep, detailed articles on how these supposed mobile bio-weapons labs actually work. Right now they are just a fairy tale, and there is doubt if they could exist, much less whether Iraq has the ability to build them.

                      But we were talking about media critique. Yes, all those sources are better then Free Republic. Which was all I said.

                      The CBC article is surprising as they normally do a better job then that, Iraq hardly counts as a "spiritual ally" of Af
                    • Re:Fear (Score:2, Informative)

                      by jordan (120) on 2003.02.17 23:18 (#17199) Homepage Journal
                      • Right now they are just a fairy tale, and there is doubt if they could exist, much less whether Iraq has the ability to build them.

                      Why do you say this? There is supposedly detailed defector testimony as to their existence. [washingtonpost.com] Read this article, even the sceptical Biological Weapons specialist, Raymond Zalinkas states:

                      "We know it is possible to build them -- the United States developed mobile production plants, including one designed for an airplane -- but it's a big hassle. That's why this strikes me as a bit far-fetched."

                      This indicates that it is clearly possible that they exist. As to whether Iraq could build them or not. It's amazing what a few Billion dollars of 'humanitarian' oil money that's supposed to go to starving, disease-ridden children can do. Not to mention all the oil Iraq is selling through Jordan that's against the UN Sanctions.

                      But then, this Zalinkas strikes me as perhaps not being the most aware, or perhaps he has a hidden agenda. He says in the article:

                      "The only reason you would have mobile labs is to avoid inspectors, because everything about them is difficult," Zilinskas said.

                      Uh, how about to avoid cruise missile and other bombing attacks, short of all-out war, like the US has been doing from time-to-time for years?

                      • The PBS article is interesting because Ritter uses that same story to talk about when inspections started worked, once they got full support, and an increased staff.

                      Now, it's my turn for an Ad Hominem. Ritter doesn't have much credibility here. The UNSCOM inspectors hardly found anything before Saddam Kamel and Hussein Kamel defected and told them where it all was [pbs.org]. Ritter is obviously being self-serving here, saying that they started working when they got the increased support, when in fact, they got the increased support because they finally had hit upon something with Kamel's revelations. It's pretty telling that the UNSCOM inspectors had actually inspected the 'chicken farm' on 3 previous occasions and came up empty before Kamel's revelations [fas.org].

                      • And having read Blix's actual transcript, not a UPI or AP summary, and not the editted version which appeared on CNN, I disagree with your interpretation of what he said.

                      OK, how do you disagree, exactly? Here's some verbatim extracts from the transcripts as they appear on the CBC [www.cbc.ca] (I note this appears to be the same as appears on CNN [cnn.com], but you didn't want the "editted" version from CNN). Tell me how this does not indicate that the Iraqi's have been fully cooperating:

                      Such cooperation, as I have noted, requires more than the opening of doors. In the words of Resolution 1441, it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts by Iraq to resolve existing questions of disarmament, either by presenting remaining proscribed items and programs for elimination or by presenting convincing evidence that they have been eliminated.

                      And, later.


                      This is perhaps the most important problem we are facing. Although I can understand that it may not be easy for Iraq in all cases to provide the evidence needed, it is not the task of the inspectors to find it. Iraq itself must squarely tackle this task and avoid belittling the questions.

                      From the above, it's pretty clear that Iraq is not participating in "it requires immediate, unconditional and active efforts". This is what is required and Iraq is falling short.

                      Further...

                      No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms. I hope this will change. We feel that interviews conducted with any third party present and without tape recording would provide the greatest credibility.

                      This clearly indicates that Iraq is not cooperating in private interviews.

                      Please, point out how I've edited the above to give a false impression, since you seem to be suggesting that the UPI, AP and CNN summaries were so edited. I'd like to avoid their mistakes.