One thing the American public doesn’t understand about Iraq
 

Sure.
But the same thing goes for a 44 year old journalist who knows that he'll only be on screen with a catchy news item (and who may sometimes have a political agenda as well)...
:-?

It's always puzzled me why institutions of higher education can be home to some of the dumbest people in society.

I dare to question your proclaim.:cool:

And yes the west was delivering Saddam with material for Chemical weapons.
One (a countryman of me) is put in jail therefore here in the Netherlands.:oops:

When you say "yes, the west", do you mean that this person was a government sales agent representing a western country?

Or was he a private citizen, acting on his own initiative or on behalf of a non-governmental company or organization, looking for a wad of cash to top up their Swiss bank account?

Or do you not see a difference between these?

Well, I see in a way, but schouldn't he be stopped in time by the covernment?
And what about the Frence covernment?

Was the government aware of the illegal nature of the transaction before the material was delivered? If yes, was there another reason why they didn't halt the shipments(s)? Unaware of potential use? Waiting to catch a bigger fish? I'm just asking. Are all the facts known?
I've only considered France western in the geographic sense. :p

Some (WARNING: UNDERSTATEMENT AHEAD!) cynical and sarcastic reading: Oysters and Foie Gras and, By the Way, Saddam Was Hanged.

Oh, everyone has an agenda. Even everyone who has posted here.
With so many different views, agendas and angles on political issues most people either:

a) Decide its all to much and the world is a confusing place and go and make a cuppa tea.

b) Side with the personality, religion, country or people they most identify with.

c) Side against the personality, religion, country or people they least identify with.

Everyone is effected by effected by a, b or c to some extent; some more obviously then others.
Personally I find I never have enough information I can trust and I lack background knowledge of people, places and history. I end up in category 'a'.

'a' is bad because you don't count until you can decide. Someone in 'a' may never make a difference for the better.

'b' is bad because it lacks questioning and your side may be the "wrong" one. Someone in 'b' might not question their guiding government, religion, people or personality.

'c' is bad because it lacks self criticism and the side you are against may be the "right" one. Someone in 'c' might be blinded by their prejudice against people.

'a' and 'b' often go hand in hand, but not always.

Occasionally someone will chose 'd'.
'd' is leading people your self.

'd' is bad because a room full of leaders, by definition can't achieve goals together unless some of the "leaders" are lead by other leaders. Those being lead are no longer 'd' (leaders), they are now 'b' (see above). If all the leaders remain independent then the group as a whole becomes as directionless as 'a'.
And then finally, if you do end up leading people independently, you will almost certainly be corrupted.

The UN is a good example of a room full of leaders.


Its important to know I'm talking about political issues here, not general conflicts such as ongoing war.

So whats the best option if you want to make the "right" choice?
I think the best thing to do is to try and understand all the underlining systems like this. Try to escape the influences of 'b' and 'c', gain all the knowledge you can and then make a compromise. After you do that act on your choice, even if you just change the way you vote next time.

Option 'd' is out of the reach of most people and is almost impossible to get right and stay uncorrupted....unless you are the next Gandhi - Mandela.


This could all be bull **** btw, I'm making it up as I go along and I have no real knowledge of political philosophy! ;)

*edit* Wish I could get my self to write that much back in education, my spell check must be burnt out.
*edit#2* This isnt off-topic, its just meta-topic ;)

You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD.
300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is "A" weapon of mass destruction.
The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937.

What was found after the invasion was old and useless. It couldn't be termed a WMD. If the coalition had found just one modern up to date container of a chemical/biological or nuclear weapon Bush's reasons for invasion would have been vindicated. None were found.

OK, lets go step, by step here...

You said:
"You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD."

Yes, I was. However, to quote myself:

"where ever you draw the line between destruction and mass destruction, a chemical weapon is only a WMD if it is effective enough to cause mass" destruction." "

You said:
"300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is "A" weapon of mass destruction."
"The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937."

That's a bit like saying 3,000,000 knife wielding men is a weapon of mass destruction. Clearly not the case. A weapon of mass destruction is denoted by the destruction a single weapon used once does. Its possible to kill millions if you have 3,000,000 knife wielding men and a good opportunity. That does not make it a WMD at all.
There is a big difference between mass destruction as seen at Gernika, Spain and a weapon of mass destruction as seen at Hiroshima.
If the term was used at Gernika, then it's meaning has significantly changed.

You said:
"What was found after the invasion was old and useless."

No, chemical weapons where used with effect by Iraq against it's own people. Not a WMD, but not useless either.


Gah, talk about getting weighed down in definitions.
How ever you describe concepts, it is the concept, not the word that counts.

One thing the American public doesn’t understand about Iraq
 

The Dutchman was a private citizen, a businessman actually, who tried to hide his trade with Saddam from public scrunity. A few years ago he spoke about his connections with Saddam. The Dutch Justice system then started a criminal inquiry, putting one of our top prosecutors (Fred Teeven - for insiders; since last November's elections a Member of Parliament) on the case, which was in legal circles considered a 'mission impossible'. Nevertheless, the businessman, Van Anschat, was convicted for crimes against humanity. I hope for him that he has a Swiss bank account because he will now face civil claims from lawyers of Kurdish victims of Saddam.

But to answer The Avon Lady, this kind of help to Saddam was of course considered illegal, but - as anybody will understand - obscure transactions are very difficult to prevent in an open society.

This war is the end of war as modern man has fought war ...

Tanks and planes ... men and machines started this war that
has now become a war of occupation.

We bascically have made all of Iraq a DMZ ...
All we have proved is
that you can't win a war. if you are a poor country, without WMD's.

This take over of Iraq and Afganistan may be the end of
war as we know it.

Now what do you think of first strike ... ?
Better be a solid as a rock President on the way.

I pray the next president to visit the war college every three
months just to train himself on how to react to some anti-American
country with WMD's threatening our way of life.

I don't see the enemies of Israel using anything so destructive with
Jerusalem being so Holy to their religion, but they have already used
the threat of WMD's

Israel has WMD's
Syria has Iraq's WMD's (don't argue just accept it)
Iran has WMD's
Saudi Arabia just has some old F-15's and some AWAC's
America has WMD's

WMD's can ruin your whole day ...

The generals are already looking at what this war cost ...

I wish it were the men that made a difference, but it is the
budget. We can't fight another war like this is the bottom line.

WMD's are not only cheaper for poor countries without a big
army, airforce, navy, but also for big rich in debt countries.

It would be foolish to fight another war like this one ...

America will have to adjust to the threat of WMD's from it's
enemies like never before ...

First strike vs a dragged out war that no one wants ...

Which one makes sense?

Thank you.
Your concept is different then most of the worlds I think. The understanding of a definition could be the difference between a handshake and a knife in the back. (Just felt like being a little melodramatic :))

Yes in 1988.

Try this definition. Some people swear by this channel. :) http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...,76887,00.html

You know something the rest of the world doesn't?

Old news. Browse through the Iraqi WMDs Revisited thread to find several article links discussing Syria's supposed role in hiding the WMDs.

Unlike Geetrue, this is not to say that there is nothing to argue about.

This for those who disagree (no flaming here)

I know there are other long drawn out arguements
about it, else where.

Where did all of the WMD's go ...?

I just have a gut feeling about this. Saddam had them ...
He gave his airforce to Iran during Desert Storm or
right after the war at least, didn't he?

The war that's left is really just between the suni's
and the ****es anyway.

I keep trying to figure out how I can remember that
the ****es are the ones causing all of the trouble in
post war Iraq ... It'll come to me ... pun intended :lol:

I'm not hardheaded but I've read enough here and there that made me decide that Syria is not hiding any weapons. If they were there would have been some whisper somewhere about it that intelligence services could act on.

Hehe, the curse filter will block out ****es. :lol: This forum is for suni's only.

I've read lots and I have no way of drawing a definitive conclusion.
Here I strongly disagree with you. US intel (actually not just US) is just soooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaad.

SHIITE

Two 'I's don't make an asterisk. :D