Don't Start the Second Gulf War

National Review Online ^ | 8-12-02 | Doug Bandow

[NeoCaveman]

I was just kidding about the 'heathen idol-worshipper' thing... get a grip.

The sarcasm tag is our friend. Especially for the sarcasm-impared.

Heck, I knew it was in jest, satire even...

[Chad Fairbanks]

If someone can't tell that I'm being sarcastic or engaging in satire, or just kidding around, well it's THEIR problem, not mine :0)

[NeoCaveman]

Invading and ousting a sitting government just because "we think" they might attack us is a shaky and ambigious doctrine for which to place the safety of our nation and way of life.

Well we could wait for a smoking gun, of course that could be a mushroom cloud. To me the riskiest thing to do is nothing.

[NeoCaveman]

666 posted on 9/25/02 10:12 PM Eastern by Chancellor Palpatine

The darkside is strong in this one.

[Hila]

Of course Iraq is a threat to USA and to others in their vicinity. Reports are coming out stating that terrorists have sought sanctuary in precisely that country and are being armed by the mandman.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I'm embracing the dark side. Its mine.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Good... that leaves the Frosted Side for me, then...

;0)

[NeoCaveman]

[Chad Fairbanks]

The Fork is strong in this one...

[NeoCaveman]

And by some strange coincidence there are 5 shredded wheats on the spoon....

[Chad Fairbanks]

Ooh... so that means it's part of that Vast Bush-Bot Conspiracy (VBBC), a theory I believe is prevalent among many of our libertarian brethren...

[NeoCaveman]

Yes... Post Cereals is part of the VBBC.

Frito-Lay isn't part of the VBBC....they couldn't afford to lose a munchie boycott by the Liberaltarians.

[Chad Fairbanks]

lol...

[nopardons]

Oh dear, you poor baby. Now, I can't do math ? I took far less liberties with rounding off, than you did. But I see that when you do something wrong, that's okay. You learn that in kindergarten ? that's okay, you'll learn rounding off, when you are a " big boy " and finally get into first grade.

A stopped clock may be right twice a day ; you never are.

You wouldn't be capable of understanding what Conservatism is, if your mommy AND your daddy explained it to you ; but, do get them to try .

You're on the wrong side of this one. It's you and Jane Fonda and Ed Asner, and little Tommy Dashole, and all of the rest of the " I HATE AMERICA " crowd. Doesn't that just make you feel all warm & fuzzy ? It should.

You're quite wrong ( no surprise there ) , in your claim re the Panama Canal and how we can do something about it " now ". That's okay, I understand, you missed your nap today and your blankie has gone missing.

tsk, tsk, tsk ... pathetic , would be a kind assessment, of what you are.

[nopardons]

Oh really ? " NUTS " ?

If you and those, whom you are agreeing with, have decided that I am " nuts ", I'd rather be " NUTS ", than what you all are. LOL

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Funny, I thought that last week you said you'd studied it quite a bit, and while you usually disagreed with Bush, you thought he totally right about Iraq?

So you noticed this amazing transformation too, did you?

These kids couldn't sound any more like Democrats if they practiced for a year.

[rightwing2]

Oh really ? " NUTS " ?

Nuts is right! LOL! Sorry, your not worth my time. I'm tired of lowering myself to your level.

[rightwing2]

There was no evidence linking Khadafy and his family to the bombing. None. Reagan didn't need evidence that stood up in a court of law, he knew where the danger was. So does Bush. Try to be consistent at least. Either Reagan and Bush are wrong to strike preemptively at the enemy or they are both wrong. Honest debate requires honesty.

Well good I’m glad you at least agree with that statement. I have been completely honest and consistent in my arguments. Reagan’s attack against Libya was not a pre-emptive unprovoked attack as Bush’s would be in Iraq. Reagan’s bombing of Tripoli was in response to a terrorist attack regardless of whether such evidence would hold up in a court of law. Presidents from Thomas Jefferson (with the Barbary pirates) to the present have responded with such reprisals to terrorist attacks and it is completely consistent with the President’s war powers under the Constitution. Iraq on the other hand is different because Bush has not raised Iraq’s sponsorship of any terrorist attacks against the US for which he was unable to find any evidence) as a justification for war.

Furthermore, Iraq has invaded no country and does not pose a threat to anyone but Kuwait and Israel. Accordingly, for the US to attack Iraq would be entirely unprovoked and accordingly illegal under customary international law. An attack on Iraq would be pre-emptive in the sense that one of the rationales that the President has raised is that Iraq is on the verge of developing nukes and will use them against US cities as soon as he succeeds, a conclusion which is not supported by the last DECLASSIFIED CIA Report on the Ballistic Missile Threat published in 2001.

[Wordsmith]

Iraq on the other hand is different because Bush has not raised Iraq’s sponsorship of any terrorist attacks against the US for which he was unable to find any evidence) as a justification for war.

Do you stand by this statement in light of the remarks by Condi Rice on PBS last night regarding Iraqi training of al Qaida and evidence of the Iraqis providing al Qaida with chemical weapons?

[rightwing2]

Yes sink, he only reposted to defend his personal reputation as a patriotic veteran who loves America. Any patriotic American working at the Pentagon would go on an open internet site and claim the President is "falsifying evidence" against Iraq, claim that Iraq is posses no threat to us in direction contridiction to the President, then when pressed to qualify his claims site his access to Joint Chiefs of Staff level classified reports on other nations. Yes, this is indeed the actions of a patriotic American defending themselves.

Well, it looks like FR's premier American-hating cockroach has returned with brand new lying accusations about me. Care to support those new lying accusations with evidence this time? No I thought not. Firstly, I never claimed that the President was falsifying evidence against Iraq. Secondly, I clarified my original statement that he was hyping up the alleged threat from Iraq by saying that was I was referring to was his utilization of old evidence about Iraq being close to getting nukes from UN weapons inspectors dated from 1991 before these weapons inspectors completely dismantled Saddam's nuke R&D capability. This fact is corroberated by Newsmax.com in a a 9/11/02 article. While I did make the mistake of saying I had access to class reports in response to your incessant goadings an error for which I have since apologized, I never once cited them in support of my statements.

In fact, I took pains to point out that all of my info on Iran and Iraq came from unclassified and declassified open sources!!! I never disclosed one iota of classified information something you knew from the start but continued to lie and say that I did anyway. As I said, you have never been one to let the facts get in the way of your bombastic Commie-smear tactics, have you? Furthermore, I have never read any classified material on Iran and Iraq because those two countries have never been of particular interest to me before this whole unprovoked attack rhetoric began. My focus areas are the Russian Federation, the PRC and the DPRK, which pose the greatest threats to America's national security.