no, my friend it is you who are smoking something
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_we...emiraqgas2.html
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2003/n0..._200301234.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/sile...ed/chemical.htm

i suggest next time you do a little investigation prior to accusing me of "smoking something"

true cooperation would have markedly reduced the number of "idiotic americans" walking over their soil.  Besides, the inspection team was multi-national, not just american.  So far i've refrained from name calling for countries out of respect, and i would ask that you do the same.

i'm sorry, this is purely speculation.  The idea was to make the world a safer place.  Now we can argue about whether or not it is(which will divide on exactly the same lines as who thinks the war was justified) but that right now is not the point.  The point is that we would have liked to have Iraq cooperate.  It would have saved us American(and allied as well as Iraqi) lives and billions of dollars.  If you could see past your hatred for all things american for just a moment, you'd see this sort of thing.  But they didn't.  We did what we thought right.  And a tyrannical dictator is no longer in power.


60,000 dead Iraqi Kurds killed at Saddam's order disagree.
 

granted, not the best example.  but the fact remains that just because they have not been found DOES NOT MEAN they do not exist.  I wasn't trying to insult your intelligence before rug, but i am now.  If you can't understand that just because something has not been found it doesn't mean they don't exist then you deserve to be insulted.

i personally don't agree with first strike on our behalf.  That said, you've completely ignored the issue at hand, the fact that right now, first strike against us is not viable and if we reduced our numbers to what you're suggesting it would be




no, but we do invade the ones that sponsor terrorists, use weapons of mass destruction against their own people, have ruthless dictators and are openly hostil towards us.

with all due respect, how the hell would you know how to conduct a war.  An army deprived of things like water and power will not function as well as an army with it.  And we have been working to fix this "infrastructure" (which i still maintain is a buzzword activists like to throw around).  If you'd like to argue Iraq was better off with their infrastructure intact(and in 3rd world condition) in Saddam's control than with its infrastructure destroyed(and being rebuilt to better standards) and Saddam removed, I'd like to hear how you'd do that.

i can't speak with any authority on this subject, though i'd like to hear where you obtained your information that we have not aided afghanistan with funds to rebuild "infrastructure"

yes, there are.  and they're even more long and drawn out.  and i'm sure you know more about toppling governments than all the military leaders.  once again, with all due respect, i'd trust many people about how to effectively bring down a government than someone like you or me who has absolutely no military, diplomatic or any other relevant experience.

5 megatons is not big enough to level a continent.....sorry, you're wrong about that.

the point is right, now, you're right, if somebody first strikes us, we'll beat the hell out of them.
if we reduce our nuke numbers to what you're suggesting, first strike becomes a viable alternative.  and yes, we do have the most advanced missile defense systems in the world.  Unfortunately, they aren't anywhere close to perfect.  Until they are, I see no reason to lower the numbers we have


the first thing that comes to mind is the assasination attempt on George Bush Senior.  The others that come to mind are the terrorist training camps located within Iraq.  But i suppose you could try to ignore those if you didn't think the war was justified...

Imagine for a moment that you're in class, and your teacher thinks she sees you with drugs.  She asks you to open your backpack for her to prove theres no drugs.  you refuse.  you're also devious enough to have put the drugs somewhere in that intervening time that you refused(either to a friend or a secret compartment in your backpack.  Your teacher finally forcefully takes your backpack from you and doesn't find your drugs.  Does this mean you never had any?  No, it means you're smart enough to have done something with them.  If Iraq never had anything to hide, why in the world would they not have cooperated.  And don't kid yourself about how much they were cooperating, they actually expelled inspectors during Clinton's term and were doing everything possible to harry and frustrate the inspector's work prior to the war.
This is also beside the point in my opinion.  That was never the main justification for the war in my mind.  Saddam was an evil dictator.  He needed to be removed.  Destroying Infrastructure!  If you can provide me with what that word really even means then maybe we can discuss that.  You've heard that from a news show somewhere and have been throwing it around.  Buildings get destroyed in war.  Services like water and power too.  But dammit, we fix those sort of things.  The US has spent a rather large amount building crap like that up again. If you're gonna try to tell me that Iraq was better off with its "infrastructure" intact and with Saddam in power, well, then my talking to you now in this conversation won't do much good.

sorry for the absence....packing for return to college

so, lets get down to business
if your commanding officer in the military tells you to do something that is unethical, you are required to disobey that order.  If the UN tells us to not free people who are opressed, well, you can finish the analogy.  We'll obey the UN when they prove worthy of the respobsibility


thats not evern worth arguing with.  if you really believe that saddam did not sponsor terrorism you're not informed enough to be in this sort of argument.

as long as you're asking for concrete proof, why don't you supply some for this?

this statement almost makes me lose interest in this argument with you.  If you really believe Iraq was complying with the weapons inspections, you're deceiving yourself.  They were hiding and NOT cooperating.

in a word: yes.  if that makes me a cocky yank, so be it.  The rest of the world isn't stepping up to the plate.  Yes, i know you Brits are supporting us, and we definitely appreciate it.  We also appreciate every other country that has helped.  But the bottom line is without the US, Iraq would still be under the tyranny of a ruthless dictator.

I can't speak with any authority on this issue as i've never seen it before.  I didn't read through the whole document, but I imagine there may have been something decidedly anti-US(as so many of these new international documents are)  Barring that, yes, we may be wrong.  Nobody's perfect, and yes, I agree that child rights are important and should be addressed.  But that fact that I haven't heard any sort of news coverage on this argues against it being very important.
Additionally, go ahead and try to tell me that 99% of the children in the world are treated with more rights than they are in the US and i'll go ahead and laugh in your virtual face.

rug, i know you know more about nukes than this.  No single warhead is sufficient to level a continent.  We have overwhelming firepower, yes.  Why is this a bad thing.  Do you not want us to be able to defend ourselves through the threat of MAD?  I see no reason why your modified count is in any way morally superior to our current count.  Why does having more make us evil?
Additionally, once you reduce nuclear arms to that level, that makes the theory of a nuclear first strike viable.  If a country has a relatively low number of nuclear warheads,(like the numbers you've suggested) then another country has a legitimate chance of destroying all of those weapons with a single strike(nuclear or otherwise) rendering MAD(mutually assured destruction for those of you not familiar with this) worthless.  

also, for whomever asked for where Saddam is these days, theres this link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6053746/
how do i know?  Well, when it comes to facts, I guess I trust MSN.  Granted theres always room for mess ups, but then, how do you KNOW that anything you read anywhere is true unless you saw it with your own eyes.

for mole
the US is in the middle of developing a missile defense system right now.  As a matter of fact, we spend quite a lot of money on it.  As i remember we got quite a bit of flack a few years ago (once again from european powers) about breaking a treaty for it.  Make up your minds folks, you can't have it every way.

I'll match you point for point.  You won't find me claiming the US is perfect, we're far from it.  But i'm sick and tired of the rest of the world trying to villify us for saving your asses.

incorrect, not everyone is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make more money.
And secretaries make more than 20,000 a year.  There is ALWAYS a way, if you're willing to invest yourself.

Just for the record, theres so much bulls#!^ on both sides of the arguments in the past few pages they're not worth reading......if you want to make points, make them against me where i don't have to try to sort them out from other crap.

Illegality of the Iraqi War?  According to Kofi Annan huh.....Well pardner, we're cowboy's and 'round here we do whatever the hell we want(ok, i admit that was a little over the top)
Illegal is a nebulous term at best when dealing with international affairs.  Why exactly does the U.N. have the authority to declare it illegal?  Was it "illegal" for Saddam to support terrorism?  Was it "illegal" for him to use chemical and biological weapons against his people?  I'm sorry, i fail to see how this term "illegal" provides any sort of legitimate reason.  The UN made it clear to Saddam that failure to comply would be met with force.  The UN, pressured by certain nations thatt for the interest of goodwill amongst the internet community will remain unnamed(Not Britain, i know), backed down.  We finished the job.

We will respect the UN when it earns respect.  Period.  If it makes itself into a toothless and powerless body, then we can't do anything about that

Child rights issues....not really sure what you're referring to by that, i'd appreciate an explanation though i don't doubt that crap happens.  I seriously doubt the US is making a determined effort to purposefully ignore child's rights

Nukes......why should we make ourselves more vulnerable just because the rest of the world has decided to?  Russia still has ICBMs, (i don't know for sure, but i believe Britain does, correct me if i'm wrong).  Nukes are horrible weapons, yes, but they are weapons of last resort.  In a world where nothing is certain, weapons of last resort must be available.  Don't get pissy at the US for wanting to have the capability to blast the hell out of something that attacks us.

i saw some of the foreign policy issues but i don't want to go through 6 pages of them, please refresh my memory on whatever you'd like to discuss that you think you have me "nailed to the wall"

EDIT:
poor is a relative term, in comparison to a person who makes 300 thousand a person who makes 30,000 is poor, but someone with 30,000 can still pay the bills(assuming they're careful what they spend money on)  If you want to discuss different buying power for luxuries, see the above argument.

comletely beside the point.  Someone who can't pay bills on 30,000 needs to reevaluate their priorities....part of the sacrifice you make being content not to have worked harder in education or looked for a higher paying job

well theres a stereotype if i've ever heard one.  Granted, there are lots of greedy wealthy people, but making that kind of sweeping assumption is just plain wrong.  
The issue here is not greed.  The issue is, at its core, fairness.  When it comes right down to it, people who make it their passion to succeed in the United States can and will.  I know of many stories, some of them close family friends who started from nothing and now make enough money to donate(whoa, wealthy people donating?! oh my goodness) to local universities to help with research and building new facilities.  Now, before you start on that line, success doesn't necessarily imply rich.  There are many people who are much more content to be in a profession they truly enjoy than make the sacrifices necessary to make piles of money.  I'm planning on being a doctor, but not because i want to get rich.  If i wanted to do that, i'd go to law school and work my ass off there to earn a position on a track to being a partner in a huge law firm.  But making money would have to be all i'd exist for.  Most people aren't willing to make that kind of committment(i know i'm not).

first off, i don't know where you get your idea that i'm rich.  working through college puts me in a slightly financially disadvantaged position that will continue for years after i'm done with medical school.  In the meantime, i'm working away making not much more than min wage like the "poor working man" But i'm doing it.  And i'm working in school to better myself.  And i'm going to save peoples lives.  And i would really really really like to be out of debt someday.  How is any of this at the expense of the poor?

for the record, that is not at all how a flat tax works; i'm sure you knew that, but that particular sentence is very very misleading.  Its on percentage.  So taking 5,000 from a 30,000 salary is exactly like taking 50,000 from a 300,000 salary cause they're the same percentage.  Right now, in the US, in california, the tax on a 300,000 salary is almost 150,000.  I don't make anywhere near that much, but i know of people who do, and quite frankly they're taking it rather well. Now you'll argue they're still living on 150,000 while the other is living on 25,000.  Its not "fair" you'll say.  What does it take to make things fair?  The person who makes the 150,000 net(after taxes mind you) has most likely gone to school for half his life and also most likely dedicates much of their life to actually making the money reducing their amount of time to actually enjoy it.  A person who enjoys their lifestyle making 25,000 is gonna be "happier" than a person who hates their job that they work 85 hours a week at making 150,000.  Yet the person on top is the one supporting the economy for the entire nation.  Now whats "fair"?
 

Oh my goodness, stop the presses, the people who have invested time and effort in making money want to actually keep some of it?  What a novel idea.  With all due respect to everyone here, the notion that those who have made the effort to place themselves in a position to make good money through years of hard work(read: working their way through college) should bear the burden of the entire society so that everyone is "equal" is preposterous.  Those of you who've read the sword of truth series(i know theres a few of you here) will be familiar with the principals i'm talking about. Don't take me for a cold hearted bastard, i fully agree that "haves" should help the "have nots" but out of their own volition.  Laws that require people who've made money to provide for those who refuse to are nothing but guilt trips.
Wheres the incentive to improve your life when you can force others to do it for you?

Now, before you all go off on me(and i'm sure you will) keep in mind this is not a personal attack on any of you.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss this nicely, so keep that in mind.  Know also that I speak from experience.  I'm currently working my way through college and trying to go to medical school.....when i'm done i'll be hundreds of thousands in dollars in debt to learn a job that will hopefully, save peoples lives.  I'd like to be able to be out of debt eventually.

White Knight was the code name of james bond during his mission in the opening scenes of "Tomorrow Never Dies"  All the code names were chess pieces and the base was black rook.  WhiteKnight just rolls off the tongue well.

when the game is released, there'll be a monthly fee to pay.....as of right now for the beta testing everything is free assuming you can get an account

the release is months off.....they're constantly making adjustments and such.....and like i said, the game is still far too laggy for people to actually be paying for it.  That said, the whole persistant world thingy is super cool

my roomie knows people who know people at blizzard and got a beta account. from the bit i've played, it seems pretty involved....i'm new to these sorts of game but it seems pretty awesome.
bit laggy at times(k....sometimes its downright infuriating) but when it does work right....its good times.
anyone else here on the beta?

good to see you too evilknight!
anyhow, you have to read siddhartha for school?  i pity you.  i read it for academic decathlon a few years ago......pretty esoteric

The freaking 101 running through los angeles is one of the worst freeways ever

my bad, i forgot to log in, that was just me who was reading children of the mind