Is this a good idea?

[Dont Hurt Me]

Looks like Germany wants to sell and build nuke plants (plutonium) for China as long as China gives them ( now get this ) a promise they wont use the material for bombs!:confused: why not develope alternate sources instead China? any opinions?http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031204115145.1bn9vr9d.html

[mactastic]

Well, coming from a country that posseses and continues to develop WMDs I can't see how we have the moral high ground to stand on and demand that no one else possess or develop them.

And from a strategic perspective, if there is a lesson to be learned by foreign powers about our invasion of Iraq, it's that the sooner you get your hands on some nukes, the less chance you have of being invaded by the US.

Kind of odd though, considering the Germans just decided to stop their own nuclear power industry and dismantle it. I doubt this will actually take place. Looks like it has been tried, and denied, before.

[Ugg]

Germany has been cultivating its relationship with China for a long time now. VW is the largest manf. of autos there, Shanghai's mag lev train was built by the Germans, as is the new city in Shanghai. The Germans support the one China policy. Germany is also the first country that China has allowed its citizens to freely travel to.

That said, China is rapidly becoming a super state with the technology to match. Their first man in space.... China also has a massive pollution problem due to the abundance of brown coal energy plants. While I do not support nuclear energy, it would make sense for China.

China is going to obtain the technology whether we want them to or not. The tiger has been unleashed and there is no stopping it now. While it is not a good idea to have nuclear technology spread around the world, we have little choice when it comes to China.

As mactastic says, who are we to deny them when we can't even abide by the treaties that we have signed?

[Dont Hurt Me]

why not wind farms and solar collectors? then again why dont we have more of this? i know... Oil companies.:rolleyes: it is a finite source.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
why not wind farms and solar collectors? then again why dont we have more of this? i know... Oil companies.:rolleyes: it is a finite source.

China recently enacted the most stringent vehicle MPG standards the world has ever seen. Rather than exempting SUVs from the big picture they will be required to meet the same standards. Oil is China's largest import and if they are to avoid the same trap the US has fallen into then they need to ensure that they use as little as possible. Either that or start rebuilding their army so that they can too, start fighting unjust wars in the middle east for the control of the oilfields.

It would be interesting to see how much China has invested in renewables. Anyone know?

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by mactastic
Well, coming from a country that posseses and continues to develop WMDs I can't see how we have the moral high ground to stand on and demand that no one else possess or develop them.

And from a strategic perspective, if there is a lesson to be learned by foreign powers about our invasion of Iraq, it's that the sooner you get your hands on some nukes, the less chance you have of being invaded by the US.

Kind of odd though, considering the Germans just decided to stop their own nuclear power industry and dismantle it. I doubt this will actually take place. Looks like it has been tried, and denied, before.

China has had nuclear weapons for decades. Moral high ground doesn't depend on not having of having particular weapons. There is nothing moral about being defenseless or immoral about being armed. China lacks moral high ground because it is not a legitimate government yet and has serious problems with human rights abuses. Someday, with reform, that may not be the case.

The sooner you don't invade your neighbors, don't thumb your nose at UN resolutions for years and years, and don't support an anti US terrorists orgainzation out of your country that flys airplanes into buildings in American cities, the less chance you have of being invaded by the US. Ask Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would not be odd for the Germans to basically sell off their own nuclear industry to China. China probably doesn't have the same kind of environmental regulation that Germany might (certainly they don't have the same kind of freedom to protest against such industry), and it would allow German industry to avoid the financial losses that such a shut down might bring.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
China lacks moral high ground because it is not a legitimate government yet and has serious problems with human rights abuses. Someday, with reform, that may not be the case.

The sooner you don't invade your neighbors, don't thumb your nose at UN resolutions for years and years, and don't support an anti US terrorists orgainzation out of your country that flys airplanes into buildings in American cities, the less chance you have of being invaded by the US. Ask Iraq and Afghanistan.



Why isn't China a legitimate government? It is recognized by the US and the UN..... Is it that you find their style of government offensive?

The US is one of the most significant abusers of human rights across the globe yet nobody is clamoring for reform here.

The US has supported many terrorists throughout the years yet you seem to think that the US should be immune from the backlash that such support is bound to create. Such thinking ignores the reality of imperialism throught the last thousand or so years.

[G5ROCKS]

You are correct. I find their style of government offensive. I find the style of government that bans certain religions, locks up people for advocating democracy, and crushes peaceful student protests with tanks to be offensive and illegitimate in a moral sense. I find a government that is not at the consent of the governed but that the consent of the government to be offensive. Of course, the government of China is legitimate in the legal respect that it is recognized.

You may be of the opinion that the US should not have responded as it did, but it is also a reality that this has consequences.
http://www.september11news.com/111wtcreutersitaly.jpg

[mactastic]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Moral high ground doesn't depend on not having of having particular weapons.

Oh maybe the moral high ground has something to do with using said weapons against innocent civilians then?

And of course it has everything to do with possessing particular weapons. Thats why we went after Saddam right? Not because he was an evil bastard, but because he could threaten us with WMDs right? If we thought Saddam was hording all the bottle rockets in the world, would support for an invasion have been so broad? (At least in this country.)

And seriously, claiming they are an illegitamate government is going a little far. Would you like to rephrase that one before I debunk it for you?

[edit]
Ah good you did it already.
And FWIW I find their style of government offensive as well. Let's give them Most Favored Nation trading status as a reward.

[G5ROCKS]

Does France lack moral high ground because it has nuclear weapons? Did those in Rwanda have moral high ground because they didn't use nuclear weapons in that genocide? I really don't think that is the case.

We didn't go after Saddam because he had WMD. We we after Saddam because he was an evil bastard who wasn't coming clean on his WMDs. Chirac and Blair have WMD, but we don't go after them because they are Chirac and Blair, and they are not evil bastards.

As for China, it's a tough issue. Do you trade and try to influence change in that country, or do you cut off trade and create an economic catastrophe? It isn't an easy decision. As was the case in South Africa, should we have cut off all trade, or should we have encouraged it so as to influence reform? Again, there aren't easy answers to these questions.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS

We didn't go after Saddam because he had WMD.

nice try, mr. revisionist history

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by zimv20
nice try, mr. revisionist history

Read the context.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
We didn't go after Saddam because he had WMD. We we after Saddam because he was an evil bastard who wasn't coming clean on his WMDs. Chirac and Blair have WMD, but we don't go after them because they are Chirac and Blair, and they are not evil bastards.


I read your context. You stated that we didn't go after Saddam because of his lack of proof of a negative, namely that he didn't have WMDs. That is what conservatives like to refer to as "revisionist history". It could also be called, not quite so charitably, a lie.

Prewar, all the focus was on these supposed WMDs that he had on a 45 minute trigger spread throughout the areas north south east and west of Baghdad. We were warned that Saddam was working on infiltrating our country with remote drones capable of distributing WMDs over American cities. We were told that as soon as troops crossed a specific line there were orders to use chem/bio weapons. Suddenly, after "major combat operations" were deemed over, and when the hunt for WMDs went cold we were after Saddam because he was an evil bastard. If you don't agree with that timeline, your head is much farther in the sand than I had previously thought.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by mactastic
I read your context. You stated that we didn't go after Saddam because of his possesion of WMDs. That is what conservatives like to refer to as "revisionist history". It could also be called, not quite so charitably, a lie.

Prewar, all the focus was on these supposed WMDs that he had on a 45 minute trigger spread throughout the areas north south east and west of Baghdad. We were warned that Saddam was working on infiltrating our country with remote drones capable of distributing WMDs over American cities. We were told that as soon as troops crossed a specific line there were orders to use chem/bio weapons. Suddenly, after "major combat operations" were deemed over, and when the hunt for WMDs went cold we were after Saddam because he was an evil bastard. If you don't agree with that timeline, your head is much farther in the sand than I had previously thought.

I don't think you understand my meaning because you are running off on something that is tangential to my point and calling me a liar. Calling someone a liar and taking a single sentence outside the context of the paragraph it was in just isn't good for civil discussion.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I don't think you understand my meaning because you are running off on something that is tangential to my point and calling me a liar. Calling someone a liar and taking a single sentence outside the context of the paragraph it was in just isn't good for civil discussion.

Dude, read VERY CAREFULLY. I made sure NOT to call YOU a liar. You are taking it too personally. If I had said "you are lying about this" then you could get mad, but I said the argument you made could be construed as a lie. Do not mistake the two.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by mactastic
Dude, read VERY CAREFULLY. I made sure NOT to call YOU a liar. You are taking it too personally. If I had said "you are lying about this" then you could get mad, but I said the argument you made could be construed as a lie. Do not mistake the two.

You were very careful not to call me a liar while calling me a liar. Thank you. Also, thank you for editing you post in which you originally did not call me a liar while calling me a liar.

Finally, you still haven't seemed to understand the point of my post, which was that the combination of evil (including support of terrorism) and defiance on WMDs (he never did comply with the UN) is largely what got Saddam deposed, not WMD alone, or being an evil bastard alone. WMD alone don't make someone a threat, IMO. As an example, I cite Blair and Chirac.

In any event, I think that 9/11 was the singular reason we invaded Iraq. Without 9/11, the policy of a low intensity air war with sanctions in place might have continued for many more years, IMO.

[mactastic]

You are welcome. Now kindly explain how 9/11 leads to Iraq. I think Iraq was a major distraction from the real war on terror. Show me that it was the absolute vital next step in stopping al Qaeda. That no other action would have done more to prevent the growth of terror.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
the combination of evil (including support of terrorism) and defiance on WMDs (he never did comply with the UN) is largely what got Saddam deposed, not WMD alone, or being an evil bastard alone.

that's not how the war was sold. the administration stated unequivocalably, and on numerous occasions, that hussein had the weapons.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by mactastic
You are welcome. Now kindly explain how 9/11 leads to Iraq. I think Iraq was a major distraction from the real war on terror. Show me that it was the absolute vital next step in stopping al Qaeda. That no other action would have done more to prevent the growth of terror.

How 9/11 leads to Iraq.
1. Pre 9/11: Iraq is an unstable place in the Middle East, under UN sanctions and a despot with a history of aggressive behavior and support of terrorism and the US and UK are flying combat missions there on a daily basis to enforce the no fly zone to keep him from making even more mass graves. While 1998 saw significant military action in Iraq in terms of bombing, there is no immediate reason to not just continue with the sanctions and air war.

2. 9/11 happens. Wake up call. US decides that the status quo is not acceptable in the Middle East because it breeds terrorism that isn't just over there, but very much over here. But first, the immediate people who carried out 9/11 are attacked and deposed in Afghanistan.

3. Saddam's Iraq is seen a geographic and political lynchpin in the region. It has kept US forces in Saudi Arabia indefinitely (a sore spot for many in the region), and he is feared, rightly so. A strategic decision is made that the best way to protect against terrorism in the long term is to destroy the condition that breed terrorism. It is thought that depotism and poverty drive the kind of fanaticism that leads people to be terrorists, so the idea of getting rid of despots in the region and promoting freedom comes to mind quite readily to some. Saddam is one of the biggest despost in the region, and one who is conveniently under UN sanctions and combat air patrols because he refuses to comply with UN resolutions. In addition, he's a know supporter of terrorists and has a history of developing WMD. That combination was acceptable to the US before 9/11, but it wasn't acceptable after 9/11.

4. How will it end up? It's too soon to tell. It would be good if many other countries would send large numbers of troops to internationalize the occupation as they move to a representative government in Iraq. We just don't yet know how this story will end.

5. I'm not saying that this was the vital next step (there may have been other steps that would have done more, it is impossible to say). I'm arguing that 9/11 was the thing without with which the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have taken place. sine qua non is the latin phrase, I think.

zimv20,
It was a reasonable conclusion that Saddam had such weapons, and he never complied with the UN. You might also remember that the US also said that there wasn't a "smoking gun."

[Taft]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
In addition, he's a know supporter of terrorists and has a history of developing WMD.

A "known supporter of terrorists"???

Where did you get you info from? Where's the proof. The only proovable case I've ever heard of Saddam supporting terrorists concerns his standing offer to give Palestinian families of suicide bombers a cash reward.

Given Iraq and Isreal's status as enemies and the complexity of the situation between Isreal and the Palestinians (and Muslim world in general), this hardly amount to unequivically supporting terrorism.


It was a reasonable conclusion that Saddam had such weapons, and he never complied with the UN. You might also remember that the US also said that there wasn't a "smoking gun."

When did the US say that? It certainly wasn't before the war. Before the war they never used such concrete language.

The administration kept their wording intentionally vague. Except for the occasional demonstration--such as Powel's demonstration of the bogus mobile bio-weapons factory and the fake connection to terrorists operating in Kurdish territory--they were careful to only imply Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD capabilities, never to come right out and say it.

Basically, the administration ran a FUD campaign to scare/mislead the American people into believing Iraq was a serious threat to our country. No real evidence existed to prove such beliefs, but the administration was successful in selling the idea anyway.

I personally blame the spineless Democrats in congress for letting Bush and Co. spread these lies practically unanswered and for rolling over on the Iraqi resolutions and the Patriot Act. Shameful...

Taft

[Ugg]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
4. How will it end up? It's too soon to tell. It would be good if many other countries would send large numbers of troops to internationalize the occupation as they move to a representative government in Iraq. We just don't yet know how this story will end.



Why would it be good? The need for the war was sold under false pretenses. Why should the rest of the world get involved when the US has cherry picked the financial rewards? Also, the lack of a post war plan has directly led to the chaos that is occurring there today. That means that the security of foreign troops is decreasing every day. We only need to look at the huge percentage of NGOs and other organizations that have pulled out or severely decreased their presence in Iraq. As soon as the entire reconstruction of the country is internationalized, then we might see some interest on the part of other countries. Until then it is wishful thinking and only avoids the fact that the US occupation has thusfar been a total and utter failure.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Does France lack moral high ground because it has nuclear weapons? Did those in Rwanda have moral high ground because they didn't use nuclear weapons in that genocide? I really don't think that is the case.

We didn't go after Saddam because he had WMD. We we after Saddam because he was an evil bastard who wasn't coming clean on his WMDs. Chirac and Blair have WMD, but we don't go after them because they are Chirac and Blair, and they are not evil bastards.

As for China, it's a tough issue. Do you trade and try to influence change in that country, or do you cut off trade and create an economic catastrophe? It isn't an easy decision. As was the case in South Africa, should we have cut off all trade, or should we have encouraged it so as to influence reform? Again, there aren't easy answers to these questions.

One question on Iraq, when did someone being a "evil bastard" become an acceptable reason to launch a war under international law? If it is, we have an awful long list of countries waiting for our troops to "liberate" them. Of course, I'm assuming that the decision on who is an "evil bastard" and who is not is to be made by Bush alone. Otherwise, there are a few countries that have made that evaluation of ol' Dubya and they just might have a claim for preemptive war. Hell of a way to run a foreign policy.

As to China, I have no sympathy for many of the actions of the Chinese government, but isolation of the largest country in the world is just plain stupid. If we have as our goal a more democratic China then engagement with it is the only real course.

The presence of Chinese nuclear weapons are a fact of life and have been so for many decades. It is not for our country to make unilateral decision on who can have these weapons or not. I'm all for a nuclear free world, but that must be reached through multilateral action through treaties, not by saber rattling from the US. We have never indicated, by the way, that we are willing to disarm to the point that the Chinese and many other countries don't have legitimate concerns about our arsenal.

The German deal on nuclear reactors might be of concern if you have the position that all use of nuclear technology is too dangerous and should be outlawed. Unless we are willing to dismantle our own power plants or can show how these German designed one are especially dangerous then we have no leg to stand on to register a complaint.

[G5ROCKS]

One question on Iraq, when did someone being a "evil bastard" become an acceptable reason to launch a war under international law?

When he didn't abide with terms of the cease fire he signed in 1991, his evil bastardness became unimportant as to whether launching a war agaist him was an acceptable under international law. It was acceptable at that point, and any point thereafter. It was convenient that he was an evil bastard, because it's a lot easier to get public support for getting rid of an evil bastrad than someone's kind grandmother, even if she violates terms of a cease fire, but his being an evil bastard was not a requirement for legally taking him out by military force.

So far as the other countries being run by evil bastards go, take them one at a time, and not all by military force. Saddam was a rare combination. Like you said about China, engagement is the only real course in some cases.

Ugg,
It would be good because the larger numbers of security forces on the streets in Iraq would assist in providing a stable environment for the Iraqi people to develop an representative government. The occupation is by no means a total failure, and, if the Iraqi people end up free and prosperous, it will have been a great success. The outcome is not yet known. Before you are too sure, remember that the advance on Baghdad was said to be bogged down and not going well, but it ended up that it wasn't bogged down after all.

Taft,
First, yes Saddam had ties to terrorists in addition to Palestinian groups. Iraq wasn't the top terror supporting state, but it was one of them. This is one of those "known knowns" that Rumsfeld got that foot in mouth award for. The Council of Foreign Relations is a place for you to start looking.

Second, the question of a smoking gun was brought up before the war, and the lack thereof was a big debating point. The administration said specifically they didn't have one, but they didn't need one becuase the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.

Finally, I implore you to give the Democrats a little credit. They believed what the Bush administration said in part because they got that same information from the Clinton administration before the bombings in 1998, and there wasn't any evidence that the situation had changed with Saddam.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
zimv20,
It was a reasonable conclusion that Saddam had such weapons, and he never complied with the UN. You might also remember that the US also said that there wasn't a "smoking gun."

your evil-bastard/defiance-of-UN arguments are straight out of the WH playbook from april and may.

i know those arguments and your repeating them isn't going to make me forget how the war was sold.

go back to august '02 through the start of the war and revisit what the WH was saying then. it's a lot different than the rapid backtracking that was done in april and may.

[Taft]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Taft,
First, yes Saddam had ties to terrorists in addition to Palestinian groups. Iraq wasn't the top terror supporting state, but it was one of them. This is one of those "known knowns" that Rumsfeld got that foot in mouth award for. The Council of Foreign Relations is a place for you to start looking.

Here are some headlines from the cfr's website under the sections "The War on Terror":

Foreign Policy Expert Judt Argues that Bush's Pre-Announced War with Iraq Impedes the War Against Terrorism

New Yorker Writer Danner Argues that Intervention in Iraq Could Bring the Terrorist Threat Closer to America

Former National Security Council Staffer Benjamin Says Iraq and Al-Qaeda Are Enemies, Not Allies


Hmmm...where is the information pointing to the supposed link between Saddam and terrorists?

Outside of your assertion that "yes Saddam had ties to terrorists in addition to Palestinian groups," I haven't seen a single concrete peice of evidence demonstrating a link between Saddam and known terrorists. Since you are attempting to make the case, I emplore you: show me some evidence!

The administration said specifically they didn't have one, but they didn't need one becuase the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.

Which implies what? That Saddam has WMD's and has the capability to use them against us. Now that we are in Iraq and have full access to the country, where are the WMDs?

As I said in my previous post, the administration did a very good job of convincing the American people that we had to act out of self-preservation. Basically, "attack them, or they'll attack us." Now that we are in Iraq, that mentality is demonstratably false.

You are right that the administration admitted to not having a smoking gun before the war. That was my mistake. However, that fact doesn't indemnify them from how wrong they were. They misconstrued the evidence and made the wrong call: Iraq was not a threat to the US. They should be held accountable for that blunder.

Finally, I implore you to give the Democrats a little credit. They believed what the Bush administration said in part because they got that same information from the Clinton administration before the bombings in 1998, and there wasn't any evidence that the situation had changed with Saddam.

Yes and no. Yes they were given information that Saddam was violating UN resolutions from the Clinton administration and possibly still trying to develop weapons. They were given the same information from the Bush administration. The difference is that the Bush administration told them that the only course of action was a full scale war. This is not something the Clinton administration had told them.

I think the congressional democrats are complicit with the Bush administration in going to war in Iraq. They went along with Bush and gave him permission to go to war in order to look good politically. That is simply not a good reason to authorize such a serious action.

Taft

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
When he didn't abide with terms of the cease fire he signed in 1991, his evil bastardness became unimportant as to whether launching a war agaist him was an acceptable under international law. It was acceptable at that point, and any point thereafter. It was convenient that he was an evil bastard, because it's a lot easier to get public support for getting rid of an evil bastrad than someone's kind grandmother, even if she violates terms of a cease fire, but his being an evil bastard was not a requirement for legally taking him out by military force.

So far as the other countries being run by evil bastards go, take them one at a time, and not all by military force. Saddam was a rare combination. Like you said about China, engagement is the only real course in some cases.



Sorry, the argument that the US had the right under international law to launch a war because of UN resolutions of ten years before and in defiance of the Security Council refusing to give its ok for such a action just doesn't hold water. Only the most desperate of Bush backers really believes that argument. Bush launched this invasion without the ok of the UN and in defiance of international law. His whole doctrine of preemption is a straight up challenge to the basic precepts of international law. Preemptive war is only acceptable under the UN Charter if there is an imminent danger posed to another country. This was not the case in Iraq. The neoconservatives around Bush know this and have gone to great pains to show that they have the right to work outside the law in order to accomplish what they see as the greater good. Nice try, but it doesn't wash.

So what is your advice to other nations to handle an "evil bastard" who has determined that he has the unilateral right to change the governments of other sovereign nations? Just because the "evil bastard" in question has the world's greatest military at his disposal doesn't change the character of what he has done. In the old days it was called the "conquest of empire."

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by Taft
Here are some headlines from the cfr's website under the sections "The War on Terror":

Foreign Policy Expert Judt Argues that Bush's Pre-Announced War with Iraq Impedes the War Against Terrorism

New Yorker Writer Danner Argues that Intervention in Iraq Could Bring the Terrorist Threat Closer to America

Former National Security Council Staffer Benjamin Says Iraq and Al-Qaeda Are Enemies, Not Allies


Hmmm...where is the information pointing to the supposed link between Saddam and terrorists?

Outside of your assertion that "yes Saddam had ties to terrorists in addition to Palestinian groups," I haven't seen a single concrete peice of evidence demonstrating a link between Saddam and known terrorists. Since you are attempting to make the case, I emplore you: show me some evidence!



Which implies what? That Saddam has WMD's and has the capability to use them against us. Now that we are in Iraq and have full access to the country, where are the WMDs?

As I said in my previous post, the administration did a very good job of convincing the American people that we had to act out of self-preservation. Basically, "attack them, or they'll attack us." Now that we are in Iraq, that mentality is demonstratably false.

You are right that the administration admitted to not having a smoking gun before the war. That was my mistake. However, that fact doesn't indemnify them from how wrong they were. They misconstrued the evidence and made the wrong call: Iraq was not a threat to the US. They should be held accountable for that blunder.


Yes and no. Yes they were given information that Saddam was violating UN resolutions from the Clinton administration and possibly still trying to develop weapons. They were given the same information from the Bush administration. The difference is that the Bush administration told them that the only course of action was a full scale war. This is not something the Clinton administration had told them.

I think the congressional democrats are complicit with the Bush administration in going to war in Iraq. They went along with Bush and gave him permission to go to war in order to look good politically. That is simply not a good reason to authorize such a serious action.

Taft

So far as whether going into Iraq was a blunder or not, that will be decided by an election. You want to hold them accountable, but others will want to give them credit.

Yes and no? Here's what President Clinton actually said about Saddam and WMDs.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

You know, in the post 9/11 world, the US just wasn't willing to take that risk. Same information, different policy choice. I take a somewhat less cynical view of the Democrats. I think the Democrats voted to go to war because they believed what President Bush said and they believed what President Clinton said.

Back to the terroism and Iraq ties, please read the following taken from the CFR site. You'll note an emphasis against the argument that Saddam supported Al Qeada, but you will also note the long-term ties with Saddam and terrorism.

"Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to Palestinian terror groups.

I would note that this is more than paying people to blow themselves up and kill Israelis, although some would consider that alone to be fairly barbaric.

What types of terrorist groups did Iraq support?
Primarily groups that could hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Iraq has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a separatist organization fighting the Turkish government, and several far-left Palestinian splinter groups that oppose peace with Israel. Iraq also hosted the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel, and before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq’s increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad’s links to terror could continue to increase.

I'm not making the argument here that Saddam was tied to 9/11 directly or that he was closely linked with al qeada. There is debate on those issues, but there isn't debate on these other issuse that Saddam's Iraq was a supporter of terrorism generally. (Not to mention his domesitic terrorism. Did you see the 60 Minutes piece with all those mass graves in Iraq (and Bosnia) Heartbreaking stuff. Particlarly the guy who just wanted to find his cleric grandfather's bones so he could visit the actual place where he was buried.

Taft, to quote Mr. Rumsfeld, it seems that there were some "unknown unknowns" for you, or something like that. What you though you knew to be false was, in fact, not false after all. We'd all do well to remember those unknown unknowns.

[Sayhey]

One thing to note is that none of the "terrorist" organizations you list as having been supported by Saddam has anything to do with Islamic fundamentalism. In fact many of them are from the opposite end of the political spectrum. Saddam was no communist (he tried to kill the Iraqi Communist movement off and they started warfare against him long ago) but he was willing to support secularist and left movements where their interests coincided with his. This says nothing about the supposed ties to al Qaeda which viewed Saddam as an obstacle to their view of the "right" kind of Islamic society.

One can certainly disagree with the designation of the State Department of some of these organizations as "terrorists." Both the Kurdish and Iranian examples have histories that include goals that most folks can understand. The label of "terrorism" is now used to put any struggle the government doesn't agree with as beyond the pale. Neither of the above mentioned cases are my idea of the best politics, but they are in the mainstream of the resistance movements of both the Iranians and the Kurdish people for a better life.

[G5ROCKS]

Some of the groups were Islamic terrorists according to that site, although most were not. There are others in the intelligence community who believe Saddam's ties with al Qeada are pretty iron clad, but I have not mentioned them here because former CIA directors may not have credibility.

Designation as a terror supporting state is sometimes influenced by political considerations and you may argue until you're blue in the face over whether a particular group should be called terrorists or not, but it is pretty clear from that site that Saddam was supporting groups to undermine the government of his potential enemies in the region, helping to make the region unstable and less capable of reform. All the more reason to take him out, IMO.

[Sayhey]

My understanding is the only real connection of Saddam to any fundamentalist organization is the support for families of suicide bombers in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza. If that is the connection then most of the governments of the Middle East qualify as supporting "terrorist" organizations.

I agree that Saddam was supporting organizations to undermine other governments in the region. As have we. In the case of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq in Iran, just look at the slow response of our own government to the organization in Iraq once our troops were there. It seems that this "terrorist" group wasn't quite that bad. At least we let them leave peacefully after a long period of ignoring them.

The Kurdish Workers’ Party has change its name and its goals and ideology (no longer Marxist-Leninist). One can and should condemn some of the tactics used by them in the past, but if anyone thinks this is one sided then they just don't know anything about the Turkish repression of the Kurds. The designation has more to do with old Cold War politics and Turkey's membership in NATO.

Saddam was and is a "evil bastard." However, the ties he had to any of the organizations you have named had little or nothing to do with why we went into Iraq. Their only use is as a propaganda tool to justify the action taken for other reasons.

[G5ROCKS]

Your understanding differs from that of former CIA director Woolsey about Saddam's ties with Islamic terrorists. Like I said, you can argue about particular groups, but the fact of the matter is that Saddam has a long history of terrorist connections. Terrorism wasn't a new thing for Saddam.

Ah, the nefarious "other reasons!" Oil contracts, Hallibuton, the pipeline in Afghanistan, the dollar vs. the Euro, Bush and bin Laden are actually working together? I think I've heard them all from various sources, and I find them fairly lacking, frankly.

Briefly--after 9/11, the US no longer believes that it can live and let live in Middle East and that it can no longer basically ignore Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It has nothing to do with Halliburton or currency exchanges or oil contracts for Chevron. It has to do with what the US government sees as a serious long term threat to the security of its citizens and its allies, and a policy decision, driven by 9/11 to adopt a much more proactive stance. That is the main reason we went into Iraq. Maybe we should have done so in 1990-1991 instead of leaving him in power as an open sore on the region. It would have made for fewer Iraqis in those mass graves.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Briefly--after 9/11, the US no longer believes that it can live and let live in Middle East and that it can no longer basically ignore Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It has nothing to do with Halliburton or currency exchanges or oil contracts for Chevron. It has to do with what the US government sees as a serious long term threat to the security of its citizens and its allies, and a policy decision, driven by 9/11 to adopt a much more proactive stance. That is the main reason we went into Iraq. Maybe we should have done so in 1990-1991 instead of leaving him in power as an open sore on the region. It would have made for fewer Iraqis in those mass graves.

That is what i mean by patronizing. Making statements like " the US no longer believes" Now if you mean that the US consists of only those who support gw and his ego boosting imperialism then I suppose you are correct. But if you mean all Americans then you are way off base. The US does not believe this, although some Americans may.

Once again, the you and the US govt. has conveniently ignored the fact that Saudi Arabia is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, not Iraq, not Lybia, not Syria, and definitely not Iran. But, gw along with the last 4 presidents has refused to "upset" the "valued" relationship. What has happened though with the pentagon's utter disregard for average Iraqis health, safety and wellbeing is that Iraq is fast becoming a breeding ground for terrorists.

If terrorism was what this bogus war was about then it should have targeted the den of vipers not merely the toothless and senile tigers.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by Ugg
That is what i mean by patronizing. Making statements like " the US no longer believes" Now if you mean that the US consists of only those who support gw and his ego boosting imperialism then I suppose you are correct. But if you mean all Americans then you are way off base. The US does not believe this, although some Americans may.

Once again, the you and the US govt. has conveniently ignored the fact that Saudi Arabia is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, not Iraq, not Lybia, not Syria, and definitely not Iran. But, gw along with the last 4 presidents has refused to "upset" the "valued" relationship. What has happened though with the pentagon's utter disregard for average Iraqis health, safety and wellbeing is that Iraq is fast becoming a breeding ground for terrorists.

If terrorism was what this bogus war was about then it should have targeted the den of vipers not merely the toothless and senile tigers.

By "the US no longer believes," I mean the government of the United States, specifically the administration and the Congress of the United States, who respectively carried out and voted to authorize that action in Iraq. Sorry that you found that patronizing, but I assumed people would be able to understand that I was talking about US policy, not what "everyone" thought. Again, my apologies.

Last time I checked, the Saudis were coming around to this terrorism war thing, particularly after they started getting attacks on their own soil. They can be dealt with by means other than force. Reform is possible there.

You say that the occupation authority has utter disregard for the Iraqi people, but I would say that claim is quite suspect on its face given the rehabilitation of schools, hospitals, etc. etc. Perfect? Far from it, But utter disregard? That's drama queen talk.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Your understanding differs from that of former CIA director Woolsey about Saddam's ties with Islamic terrorists. Like I said, you can argue about particular groups, but the fact of the matter is that Saddam has a long history of terrorist connections. Terrorism wasn't a new thing for Saddam.

Ah, the nefarious "other reasons!" Oil contracts, Hallibuton, the pipeline in Afghanistan, the dollar vs. the Euro, Bush and bin Laden are actually working together? I think I've heard them all from various sources, and I find them fairly lacking, frankly.

Briefly--after 9/11, the US no longer believes that it can live and let live in Middle East and that it can no longer basically ignore Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It has nothing to do with Halliburton or currency exchanges or oil contracts for Chevron. It has to do with what the US government sees as a serious long term threat to the security of its citizens and its allies, and a policy decision, driven by 9/11 to adopt a much more proactive stance. That is the main reason we went into Iraq. Maybe we should have done so in 1990-1991 instead of leaving him in power as an open sore on the region. It would have made for fewer Iraqis in those mass graves.

None of the reason you speculate about are the "other reasons" I was talking about. If you want to know what they are go and read what the neoconservative architects of this foreign policy (and that includes Woolsey) have to say about it. They have been screaming for Saddam's removal since that end of that last war in order to remake the map of the middle east and to impose a US vision of what the regions politics should look like. It had little to do with Saddam ties to terrorism of whatever stripe, almost nothing to do with WMDs (which were being effectively dealt with through UN sanctions), and everything to do with the need to use US military power to reorder the politics of the region and by example the rest of the world.

Read their own rabid politics and then tell me all about their concern for the Iraqi people. It is all about geopolitical ambition; the rest is smoke and mirrors.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
By "the US no longer believes," I mean the government of the United States, specifically the administration and the Congress of the United States, who respectively carried out and voted to authorize that action in Iraq. Sorry that you found that patronizing, but I assumed people would be able to understand that I was talking about US policy, not what "everyone" thought. Again, my apologies.

Last time I checked, the Saudis were coming around to this terrorism war thing, particularly after they started getting attacks on their own soil. They can be dealt with by means other than force. Reform is possible there.

You say that the occupation authority has utter disregard for the Iraqi people, but I would say that claim is quite suspect on its face given the rehabilitation of schools, hospitals, etc. etc. Perfect? Far from it, But utter disregard? That's drama queen talk.

Thanks for the clarification. Assumptions on a board are always dangerous. One should state exactly what one means, not assume that everyone is on the same wavelength.

Yeah, well, they do seem to be scared. The recent bombing and spate of arrests has made it clear that one reaps what one sows. An extremist kingdom like that ruled by the Sauds is a tinderpot about to blow. History has taught us that totalitarian kingdoms are very, very slow to change and while we may see a dramatic crackdown on dissidents I doubt that any substantive change will occur for some time. As to your assertion that they can be "dealt with" by means other than force, it rings hollow and sounds a lot like gw on DPRK. Let's face it we're overstretched as it is and have no choice but to allow the source of terrorism in the middle east to continue as is.

No, I said that for average Iraqis health, safety and wellbeing

What is the unemployment rate right now? What about the fact that the Red Cross was the most important factor in the average Iraqi's access to health care, clean water and food? The majority of the reconstruction has focused on high cost oil and infrastructure with the contracts given to American firms although Iraqi companies would be able to do the work much, much cheaper and at the same time provide work for some of those unemployed. Utter disregard is hardly an indication of a drama queen. You would do well to get your news from a few foreign sources in order to provide a more balanced view of what is happening in Iraq today. it is not pretty.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
It has nothing to do with Halliburton or currency exchanges or oil contracts for Chevron.

even though one ends up there when following the money...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS

You say that the occupation authority has utter disregard for the Iraqi people, but I would say that claim is quite suspect on its face given the rehabilitation of schools,

i saw a piece -- trying to remember where, perhaps Frontline -- that had a look at some of the "rebuilt" schools. none had books, few had but a handful of desks, a couple walls were painted here and there...

it didn't give me a warm and fuzzy about the rebuilding effort. rather, it made me think that exactly two had been reopened for the express purpose of being able to use the word 'school' in the plural.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by zimv20
i saw a piece -- trying to remember where, perhaps Frontline -- that had a look at some of the "rebuilt" schools. none had books, few had but a handful of desks, a couple walls were painted here and there...

it didn't give me a warm and fuzzy about the rebuilding effort. rather, it made me think that exactly two had been reopened for the express purpose of being able to use the word 'school' in the plural.

And I've seen video of text books coming off the presses. I would suggest that the story you saw does not reflect the complete picture in Iraq. I don't suggest things are perfect, I do suggest that they are not as you believe them to be, with two schools reopened (nice line, BTW).

Ugg,
Did you expect to see full employment in Iraq in six or seven months? LOL. Did you expect to see a fully formed democracy and vibrant economy spring up the instant Saddam's government fled? This link (http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/)
you will probably dimiss as so much propaganda, but even beneath the obvious positive light it put on the reconstruction efforts, it does reflect something other than "utter disregard" for the average Iraqi citizen. So, yes, saying that the United States and the coaltion authority have "utter disregard" for the average Iraqi citizen is the language of exaggeration and histrionics. Read: Drama Queen.

Sayhey,
The "US vision" of what the politics of the region should look like is a damned sight better than what one sees there now. A policy that ends up with democratic countries that are prosperous isn't exactly a bad thing, IMO. In fact, that should be, IMO, the foreign policy goals of all countries that value freedom and believe in human dignity. Look at how Zimbabwe is being shunned by the Commonwealth. It's because those Brits and Aussies etc. want to impose their view of how politics in Zimbabwe should be on that country. Oh, the horror of it!

[Ugg]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Ugg,
Did you expect to see full employment in Iraq in six or seven months? LOL. Did you expect to see a fully formed democracy and vibrant economy spring up the instant Saddam's government fled? This link (http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/)
you will probably dimiss as so much propaganda, but even beneath the obvious positive light it put on the reconstruction efforts, it does reflect something other than "utter disregard" for the average Iraqi citizen. So, yes, saying that the United States and the coaltion authority have "utter disregard" for the average Iraqi citizen is the language of exaggeration and histrionics. Read: Drama Queen.



You decry personal attacks and them launch them yourself. Please explain this contradiction.

While the USAID is in essence propaganda, it does highlight the accomplishments of reconstruction and it has been substantial. But as with any form of propaganda, it fails to take into account what needs to be done and the misery that pervades so many Iraqi lives.

It has already been admitted that Bremer's dismissal of the Iraqi army was a grave error and has led to trained military joining the insurgents. The lack of power and gas and the even the most basic security has led to many businesses curtailing or even shutting down operations. This is directly a result of the total absence of a post war plan for Iraq. The pentagon has admitted that they didn't have a plan in place because they didn't want to be cast as an occupying power. Uh, duh, when a country goes in and bombs the hades out of another country's infrastructure, destroys all government functions, fails to provide security then chaos is the only result. This to me is an indication of utter disregard for the average Iraqi citizen. How can it be seen in any other light? When the US govt. invaded they were totally responsible for the health, safety and well being of every Iraqi. The US military and government has utterly and totally failed them.

How long has it been since gw said mission accomplished? It only goes to show how little has been accomplished.

[Dont Hurt Me]

man have you guys gotten off track, this is about Germany selling nuke plants to China at a time when China is communist and threating Taiwan isnt it?

[Ugg]

Link (http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,7549_A_1050048_1_A,00.html)

Here is a roundup of what German Newspapers have to say about the plutonium for China, in English.

The Greens are opposed as much on human rights grounds as on any other reason, and Schröder comes in for a fair amount of grief for glossing over this. Merkel and Stoiber are of course outraged as usual.

It is very interesting that Schröder has overtaken the right on many issues and triumphed while at the same time he owes his re-election to his anti-war stance. The outcome of this sale could well mean a hugely strengthened German-China alliance with Germany being China's cheerleader in the EU. It bears watching.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS Sayhey,
The "US vision" of what the politics of the region should look like is a damned sight better than what one sees there now. A policy that ends up with democratic countries that are prosperous isn't exactly a bad thing, IMO. In fact, that should be, IMO, the foreign policy goals of all countries that value freedom and believe in human dignity. Look at how Zimbabwe is being shunned by the Commonwealth. It's because those Brits and Aussies etc. want to impose their view of how politics in Zimbabwe should be on that country. Oh, the horror of it!

If the vision of a new middle east, as put forward by the neoconservatives, was for the democratization of the area through the support of the many indigenous forces for democracy in the region along with a respect for the national sovereignty of the various nations - then I would stand up and applaud. It has little or nothing to do with whether democracy is real in these nations and everything to do with their support of US policy. I give as an example the US rejection of Ayatollah Sistani's call for elections to take place for a constitutional assembly. Something rejected in favor of the delegation of people by US appointed councils. The US proposal gives cover for the form of democracy with none of the essence. It does have the benefit of maintaining US control.

These folks (the neocons) see the use of military power as an end in itself. That is to say, that it is beneficial to wage war in order to show that there will be no new superpowers in the world and the rest of the world just better get used to it.

I would remind you that many of these same folks have the history of supporting many dictators, including Saddam, when it is useful for US military or economic interests. I don't for a minute buy the bilge they pour out about their concern for democracy.

Blair and Zimbabwe has a whole different dynamic going on. While I can't stand Blair because of his betrayal of principles that the Labour Party has long stood for, I agree with this action to try and place pressure on Mugabe. My hope is that he doesn't try to out "Bush" Bush and send troops in to change the situation.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
man have you guys gotten off track, this is about Germany selling nuke plants to China at a time when China is communist and threating Taiwan isnt it?

Sorry, you are right. I tried to respond to the original point many posts back, but got caught up in the flow of the debate.

Let me just add to the discussion this point. To me the most controversial part of Schröder's statement in not the proposed sale of nuclear plants. It is in his call for the resumption of arms sales to China. It is on this point I think he goes too far. There is no need to participate in helping the modernization of China's military while it continues to occupy Tibet and uses it to crush democratic movements. To isolate China would not work, but to ignore the worst aspect of its society is also a major mistake.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Let me just add to the discussion this point. To me the most controversial part of Schröder's statement in not the proposed sale of nuclear plants. It is in his call for the resumption of arms sales to China. It is on this point I think he goes too far. There is no need to participate in helping the modernization of China's military while it continues to occupy Tibet and uses it to crush democratic movements. To isolate China would not work, but to ignore the worst aspect of its society is also a major mistake.

Germany, Europe's largest exporter, is eager to cozy up to China, a country awash in dollars and Euros. The US has basically done the same thing and its protestations about Taiwan and Tibet have largely been without any force behind them.

Although for a long time I was very anti-China for its policies regarding Taiwan and Tibet, I think they have grown too big to stop them from getting what they want. The problem is nobody really knows what that is and I doubt China does either.

Their progress during the 90s has been breathtaking. The coming decade or so will see China flexing its newfound political and economic muscle of that I have no doubt. They are quickly becoming the 8,000 pound gorilla and we would all do well to think very hard about what we want from and with China.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by Ugg
You decry personal attacks and them launch them yourself. Please explain this contradiction.
...sinp...

How long has it been since gw said mission accomplished? It only goes to show how little has been accomplished.

Is it a personal attack to say that the statement that the coaltion has "utter disregard" for the average Iraq is exaggerated, drama queen langage? I don't consider it to be such. However, if personal attacks are the order of the day, I suppose I could come up with some if you like, you Gates-lover! ;)

One could make a pretty good argument that the US, and the world, utterly failed the Iraqi people when they failed to remove Saddam from power in 1991. The 300,000 or so Iraqis in mass graves bear silent testament to that failure. The decade plus of prolonged terror for Iraqis at the hands of a tyrant stand as testament to that failure. Did you see the video? The skulls with blindfolds still in place?

Your opionion that the US has utterly and totally failed the Iraqi people is just that--your opinion. Others will point to improvements and continued efforts in Iraq as evidence to the contrary. What is the truth? IMO, there have been successes and failures, and only time will tell whether the entire effort is successful. You talked about Bush's May 1 address. Here is a rather lengthy list that I offer, not to say every bit is accurate, to say that others have a very different perspective on Iraq that the one you offer. Again, the truth, I suspect, is somewhere in between these extremes.


Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...the first
battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty·

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... over
60000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...nearly all
of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... the Iraqi
judiciary is fully independent.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...on Monday,
October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the pre-war
average

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...all 22
universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are
nearly all primary and secondary schools.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1, by October 1,
Coalition forces had rehabbed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than their
target.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... teacher
earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...all 240
hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...doctors'
salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1..
pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in
May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...the
Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq's
children.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...a Coalition
program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of
weed-choked canals. They now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This
project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.


Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...we have
restored over three-quarters of pre-war telephone services and over
two-thirds of the potable water production.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... there are 4
900 full-service connections. We expect 50,000 by January first.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...the wheels
of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and
trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.


Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...95 percent
of all pre-war bank customers have service and first-time customers are
opening accounts daily.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... Iraqi
banks are making loans to finance businesses.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...the central
bank is fully independent.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... Iraq has
one of the world's most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... Iraq (has)
a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...satellite
dishes are legal.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...foreign
journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees
to the Ministry of Information for "minders" and other government spies.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... there is no
Ministry of Information.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...there are
more than 170 newspapers.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... you can buy
satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... foreign
journalists and everyone else are free to come and go.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...a nation
that had not one single element-legislative, judicial or executive-- of a
representative government, does.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...in Baghdad
alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first
democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council
elected its new chairman.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...today in
Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations
are electing their leaders all over the country.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... 25
ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's
history, run the day-to-day business of government.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...the Iraqi
government regularly participates in international events. Since July the
Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international
meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the
World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry
of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi
embassies around the world.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...Shia
religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... for the
first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the
pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...the
Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small
as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...Uday and
Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to his zoo lions,
raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing
Iraq's soccer players for losing games...murdering critics.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...children
aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the
government.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...political
opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to
watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...millions of
longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... Qatar is
reforming education to give more choices to parents.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... Jordan is
accelerating market economic reforms.

Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1... the Nobel
Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian -- a Muslim woman
who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.

I'd ask that you don't get all bent out of shape over partucular points you might take exception with, instead, recognize that there's a big world out there that includes prespectives beyond our own sometimes narrow horizions.

[Dont Hurt Me]

G5 does Rock!

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
I'd ask that you don't get all bent out of shape over partucular points you might take exception with, instead, recognize that there's a big world out there that includes prespectives beyond our own sometimes narrow horizions.

Just a question, how come when someone else looks at the facts and comes to conclusions that you don't agree with they are constraining themselves to their own "narrow horizons" and when you state your view it is part of the "big world" out there? It seems like a nice rhetorical flourish to try and frame a debate your way, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality.

[mactastic]

Yeah, I'd prefer you didn't get bent out of shape over any particular points I make either.:D

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
Is it a personal attack to say that the statement that the coaltion has "utter disregard" for the average Iraq is exaggerated, drama queen langage? I don't consider it to be such.

Total cop out.

You called him a "Drama Queen" point blank and now you're trying to back down by changing it to "drama queen language"?

You lack the courage of your convictions.
Say what you mean and stand behind it from now on.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Total cop out.

You called him a "Drama Queen" point blank and now you're trying to back down by changing it to "drama queen language"?

You lack the courage of your convictions.
Say what you mean and stand behind it from now on.

This what I said: "saying that the United States and the coaltion authority have "utter disregard" for the average Iraqi citizen is the language of exaggeration and histrionics. Read: Drama Queen."

This is what I meant: "saying that the United States and the coaltion authority have "utter disregard" for the average Iraqi citizen is the language of exaggeration and histrionics. Read: Drama Queen."

I intended for the words "Drama Queen" to server as elaboration for the description of the language, as in "saying ... is the language of exaggeration and histrionics. Read: Drama Queen."

I do stand by that, and I do not consider it to be a personal attack.

Now, calling him a "Gates-lover," that was a personal attack. ;)

mactastic,
I didn't even read all the points there carefully, and I certainly did do a detailed fact check on them. This isn't the state of the Union address! :)

On the topic of the thread, what's the difference? They'll just buy it from someone else if not Germany. They might manage to get cleaner energy than burning coal, thus reducing greenhouse gasses and other environment concerns, but there's the danger of nuclear power plants and waste to consider. They already have sufficient nuclear weapons, why should we worry about some reactors?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
On the topic of the thread, what's the difference? They'll just buy it from someone else if not Germany. They might manage to get cleaner energy than burning coal, thus reducing greenhouse gasses and other environment concerns, but there's the danger of nuclear power plants and waste to consider. They already have sufficient nuclear weapons, why should we worry about some reactors?

So would you support a US company selling stuff to China that might help it's nuclear ambitions? I mean they'll just buy it from someone else right? How about if we just sell al Qaeda some weapons too, if they'll just buy elsewhere we might as well get the money coming here!

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by mactastic
So would you support a US company selling stuff to China that might help it's nuclear ambitions? I mean they'll just buy it from someone else right? How about if we just sell al Qaeda some weapons too, if they'll just buy elsewhere we might as well get the money coming here!

China doesn't need these reactors to fuel its nuclear ambitions. It already has plenty of nuclear weapons. It is a nuclear power. Al Qeada doesn't, we hope to God, have such weapons yet. So, if China wanted to buy nuclear plants from the US, I wouldn't have a huge issue with it. If someone could point out a reason for me to be opposed to such a sale, I'd certainly consider it carefully, but it's not like they don't already have nuclear techonolgy and weapons in China, is it?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
China doesn't need these reactors to fuel its nuclear ambitions. It already has plenty of nuclear weapons. It is a nuclear power. Al Qeada doesn't, we hope to God, have such weapons yet. So, if China wanted to buy nuclear plants from the US, I wouldn't have a huge issue with it. If someone could point out a reason for me to be opposed to such a sale, I'd certainly consider it carefully, but it's not like they don't already have nuclear techonolgy and weapons in China, is it?

I agree that this proposed deal is not a big problem relative to the development of more nuclear weapons. China already has a great enough capacity to manufacture many more weapons if they so choose. It does raise concerns about the growth of the reliance on nuclear technology for energy production along with all the dangers around storage of nuclear wastes and other problems. I don't think this will go through because Schröder's own party and his partners in government will not allow it.

Of more concern to me is the Chancellors recent proposal around weapons sales to China.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has called for lifting the EU’s arms embargo against China. The embargo is the last one that was imposed after the bloody suppression of student revolts at Tiananmen Square in 1989.

“The new China is no longer the Tiananmen-China,” dpa quoted a delegation member travelling with Schröder on a three-day trip to China. While the People’s Republic apparently has not asked for arms deliveries, Chinese leaders consider the embargo “discrimination,” German government representatives told the news service.

They added that China had proven itself as a responsible partner in the United Nations as well as by acting as a mediator in the North Korea nuclear crisis. France has already suggested lifting the embargo.

China eyeing German plutonium plant

While China might not be directly looking for arms, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao told Schröder that he would like to buy a plutonium plant near Frankfurt and bring it to China. Siemens completed the €700 million ($837 million) plant in 1991, but it never began producing fuel elements.

Siemens CEO Heinrich von Pierer, who is travelling with Schröder in China, confirmed initial talks about a sale, estimated at €50 million. Weapons-grade plutonium could be produced in the plant, but China already has had the nuclear bomb for about 40 years.

Asked about the sale, Schröder said that he didn’t see any reasons why it could not happen. “It doesn’t look like there is anything that will prevent it,” the chancellor said on Tuesday during a visit to Canton province in southern China.

U.S. likely to oppose end to embargo, plant sale

Schröder’s comments on the plant sale are likely to anger U.S. officials, whose foreign and security policy centers around the prevention of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

They are also bound to eye with suspicion the chancellor’s support for ending the arms embargo. China is the world’s biggest buyer of foreign arms, followed by Taiwan, which is mainly supported by the U.S. government. China views Taiwan as part of its territory and has repeatedly threatened the island republic with an invasion.

Schröder still has to sell plans to coalition partner

After his return to Germany, the Social Democratic chancellor will still have to convince his government’s junior coalition partner the Greens_that an end to the arms embargo is justified. Members of the Green’s parliamentary group already said lifting the embargo was not up for discussion. Winfried Nachtwei, the Green’s deputy whip, said China’s human rights violations justified a continuation of the embargo.

Others agreed: “The chancellor’s causing the coalition grief by making such casual remarks,“ Winfried Herrmann, a Green parliamentarian, said. Angelika Beer, the Green party leader and_defense expert,_also said that it was “very early” to talk about an end to the arms embargo. Any Chinese arms requests would have to be denied, Beer said, citing Germany’s arms export guidelines, which prevent sales to countries that violate human rights.

link (http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1047143_1_A,00.html)