quote: Fox News and Robison last week revealed the contents of a 1999 notebook kept by an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) operative. That notebook detailed how Saddam's agents aggressively pursued and entered into a diplomatic, intelligence, and security arrangement with the Taliban and Islamist extremists operating in Afghanistan — years before the 9/11 attacks.
It seems like the GOP has Swiss timing, let the lies ride until the election looms and then tear the Leftist apart with intellegence on WMD's and Terrorist Links, Add to that blowing up Zarquwi, and Ann's book being no. 1 and you get a good month for the right.
posted
*blink* Wait a sec. Is this the SAME notebook that was used as "evidence" years ago?
Along with Santorum's recent batch of misdirection, I'm rather bemused if in fact all conservatives can do now to make their case is restate old claims that've been previously dismissed as if they were new and conclusive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, they're recapitulating the planning stages.
"So, Iraq is buying aluminum tubes to use for making nuclear weapons." "No, those tubes are completely unsuited for that." "So, Iraq is buying aluminum tubes to use for making nuclear weapons." "I just said that this couldn't be the case." "Let's get someone who doesn't know what he's talking about in here." . . "So, Iraq is buying aluminum tubes to use for making nuclear weapons." "Yes sir."
All they need now is to screw over our ability to gather intelligence in order to get revenge on someone that's calling them on their lies.
---
It's not fair to hold the administration to only what's true. Everyone knows that reality has a distinct left-wing bias.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it is part of 45,000 pages of Arabic translated documents that are being released Via Fox news from the Pentagon this week, all found by our soldiers in Iraq. Of course the fact that they jibe with previously "discredited" documents says more about the discreditors then those that acted on them.
posted
Bean, It doesn't matter. We knew we were right. It doesn't matter what the truth is. To them Bush is evil and wrong. But it's ok. We know the truth.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oh...let's see, the claim about people like you being a$$holes, that one's still around, and so far it still hasn't been disproved.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay's right Bean. To some it doesn't matter what gets unearthed in Iraq. There's a Michael Moore-believing segment of the left out there that still believes Iraq was a peaceful, happy country before the imperialist Americans invaded to steal the oil as part of a conspiracy between the Saudis and the Bush clan.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's not the differing opinion that drives me crazy, it's the militant, dogmatic approach to what should be a discussion. Inevitably the repeated mantra of self-righteousness negates the need for a "Reply" function on the board, and that can go both ways (right-wingers and conservatives )
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
The administration (by your own admission) has mislead the American public for political gain. ("let the lies ride until the election looms and then tear the Leftist apart with intellegence on WMD's and Terrorist Links")
The administration has shown no capacity for an exit strategy.
The administration made no plans for an insurgency.
I call these last six years very bad for the country, in terms of foreign policy.
With all this incompetance and double dealing-- I hope you understand my skeptiscism that this "notebook" of yours is anything other than a smoke screen.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to believe that actual inteligence was found, but I have to agree with Scott that it seems so strange that if the government had so much intel that would vindicate their decision, why would they wait til now to suddenly announce it?
Not that I am going to complain about the timing of the inteligence, that would just be me clammering for any reason to complain about the government, but I cannot help but wonder about the truthfulness of all this.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, if this isn't the same notebook as before - without a link, it's hard to know anything about it - I withdraw my comparison to the planning. For the "Iraq = Al Queda" thing, not Santorum's "Ah hah. They had some long expired chemical weapons." thing.
--- edit: At this point, I'd like for intelligence to be found too. I believed what I was told going in and I supported the war. I had to go around apologizing to people for believing my government would be honest with me about something like this. It would be nice to know that even if they didn't know things when they told me they knew them, some turned out to be true.
Also, it would help us out immeasurably on the international scene if at least some of the stuff we told people to sell the war turned out to be true.
Hoever, considering what happened when I trusted the Bush administration about the war intelligence initially and the transparently dishonest things supporters like Santorum are doing, I'm extremely skeptical.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I want to believe that actual inteligence was found, but I have to agree with Scott that it seems so strange that if the government had so much intel that would vindicate their decision, why would they wait til now to suddenly announce it?
What you are experiencing is a common complain among many conservatives, like myself, about this administration. On the Iraq issue, as well as on almost every public issue out there this president and administration are almost incapable of explaining themselves and mustering articlulable arguements to support themselves.
It is a good thing that this administration doesn't govern by polls and tries to lead. But sometimes I think they underestimate the public's ability to shift gears on a policy message. So they stick to the same spin or message they've always done. Right now they're thinking we don't want to reshift the focus to the reasons for going to war. "Been there done that."
It is so common that I read something that clearly and concisely explains or argues for a particular issue and I think, "Darn, why can't the administration just say this or do that to illustrate thier point." It's maddening sometimes.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not that I am going to complain about the timing of the inteligence, that would just be me clammering for any reason to complain about the government, but I cannot help but wonder about the truthfulness of all this.
I think the timing is part of the problem. Everybody knows there's an election this November, so anytime the administration drops something like this on the public (or on FoxNews) everybody takes it with a grain of salt. So even when I want to believe that we were right, I know that the upcoming midterms are what drove the decision to release this information -- and in all probability, no one will follow up on it after Election Day.
posted
Mig, I've never seen the Bush administration as having major problems getting their message out. The problems I see them having is that their messages rarely seem to match up with reality.
We've turned so many corners on Iraq that the shape there can no longer be described by Euclidian geometry. So far, their "We were right. See, here is the proof." attempts have a shelf life of maybe 4 days before they are exploded. I remember their "mobile chem-warfare labs" that turned out to be anything but, just like their experts told them before the adminstration pushed them. I remember the "Iraq had major links to Al Queda" thing that Tom referenced above, that turned out to be a single meeting that nothing came of. I remember the "There were terrorist training camps." bit that conveniently didn't mention that the camps were in a part of the country the Saddam and his government had no control over. Just recently, I watched as one of my Senators embarrassed himself and me by the blatantly dishonest WMD thing.
However, I don't remember all that many clear, cogent explanations for what the administration was doing in Iraq that relied on things that were true. As you seem to run into these all over the place, I'd appreciate if you could share them with us.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The document as so far translated does not seem THAT significant or even useful. But hey maybe they have tons more to show us.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most Leftists reject both the strict Marxist and the Marxist-Lennonist schools, but hold on, mistakenly in my belief, to forms of Socialism, although Tony Blaire's admirable, if confused, "third-way" school is popular outside of France and Eastern Europe.
I am not sure what discussion you inteded to have, O legume-enumerator, but the title definitly implied that it involved "Leftist claims" leading me, perhaps naïvely, to assume that Leftist claims, rather than anything else, might be the topic of discusion.
Note: this was a joke, but the use of Leftist, a strictly economic term, to refer to any belief system which is not actualy economic does bother me, becouse the current trend to ignore Socialist doctrine has worrying implications for conservatives, such as my self, who favour some form of societal "safty-net" and/or identify as being, in general, anti-war.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pel, You may be received differently if your posts didn't seem so centered around showing people how smart you are. As it is, you're just a few steps away from getting a cyber-swirlie.
posted
I never heard that Saddam was connected to the Taliban in the run-up to the war, only that he was connected to Al-Qaeda (That was based on the testimony of a single person who was tortured in Egypt until he said that, which he later recanted). Saddam's interests didn't lie with the Taliban. Iraq was a secular country while the Taliban's Afghanistan was based in Islamic law.
quote: The article is written, apparently, by the same guy who is publishing the notebook.
That's weird.
quote:Along with Santorum's recent batch of misdirection, I'm rather bemused if in fact all conservatives can do now to make their case is restate old claims that've been previously dismissed as if they were new and conclusive.
Yes. Santorum's "evidence" will do nothing but discredit him further. I'm pretty sure he's going to lose his seat even if the Democrats don't retake anything.
quote:The administration (by your own admission) has mislead the American public for political gain. ("let the lies ride until the election looms and then tear the Leftist apart with intellegence on WMD's and Terrorist Links")
I don't support government by dishonesty, does anyone really?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr.Squicky wrote: However, I don't remember all that many clear, cogent explanations for what the administration was doing in Iraq that relied on things that were true. As you seem to run into these all over the place, I'd appreciate if you could share them with us.
Too many to note here after 5 years of news and analysis. But two stand out. First, I'll direct you to one of the best sourses of analysis on the Iraq issue: Christopher Hitchen. Some of the most cogent analysis on Iraq has come from Hitchens, a fellow who is otherwise not a conservative on most issues. His articles for Slate.com are especially informative. Links to his work can be found at: http://www.hitchensweb.com/
I also recommend that you read regularly read the work of Victor Davis Hanson whose work regularly appears at NationalReviewOnline and can be found at: http://www.victorhanson.com/
You need to read more than leftest Blogs and CNN and the rest of the mainstream media reports to understand and get a perspective on Iraq. Try not to just read the people you already agree with and you might learn something. (Sorry, if that sounds condescending, that's not my intent. I just can't think of a nicer way of saying it.) read
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, it would help if you didn't assume he only read leftist blogs and CNN. That would go a long way to sounding "not condescending". Even if you think that's all he's done.
posted
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, unread, or unintelligent, Mig.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, You may want to consider that you don't know me that well. I'm a registered Republican who volunteered to work on the John McCain campaign in 2000. I even mostly believe in the importance and transformational effects of populist governments, although I mostly agree with Francis Fukuyama that the current attempts to do so amount to some pretty colossal screw-ups.
I feel pretty confident in my abilities to judge the Iraq situation, but, as I've said, I'd be interested in seeing what you have that disagrees with my assesment. I am unlikely to be moved by "You don't read anything except people you already agree with. Here's a dump of what two guys have written." Point me to specific things and maybe don't immediately assume that I lack integrity and I think I might be more interested in putting out some effort.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, unread, or unintelligent, Mig.
Though I thought it was at least a little funny to watch someone talk to Squick the way Squick talks to everyone else Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr Squicky, You said that you "don't remember all that many clear, cogent explanations for what the administration was doing in Iraq that relied on things that were true" I gave you two sources that regularly do just that. If you can't remember any clear, cogent explanations for the war, you haven't been looking very hard.
Kwea, Not my intent to sound condescending. My apologies if you were upset. Try not to assume that just because someone disagrees with you that they think you are ignorant, unread, or unintelligent. Most of my friends disagree with me most of the time (I have way to many liberal friends) and I don't think any of then are any of the above. Why assume something like that?
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: You need to read more than leftest Blogs and CNN and the rest of the mainstream media reports to understand and get a perspective on Iraq. Try not to just read the people you already agree with and you might learn something. (Sorry, if that sounds condescending, that's not my intent. I just can't think of a nicer way of saying it.) read
You couldn't come up with two specific articles you would like everyone here to read? Maybe even one? One article, since there have been so many? I agree with squicky that a link dump is really not the best way to get people to look at your side of the issue.
Not that I am for either side, but I really don't like it when anyone in an argument suggests the other side is ill informed, and then provides such non-specific direction, (or in some similar cases claims that the work of another person "represents" their viewpoint, so read that person). This kind of argument just rings false for me, because if you don't think you're talking to someone who can keep up in the discussion, then why are you talking to them at all?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
CNN, which has a double-bias(highly pro-American, my friends in Mexico and Hong Kong pointed this out, and, watching it in Italy, I concured, and vaguely in suport of the Democratic Party), is much less biased than the National Review, which is published by a Republican think-tank.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pelegius, The National Review is a Republican think-tank? Oh, if only that were true.
Several of you have noted that I should have referenced a single article instead of links to two opinion makers. My intent was to show two writer that regularly present concise and cogent analysis in favor of the war. But if you want one good article that details what's wrong with the left's rhetoric on the war, see this article by Hitchens in which he addresses the lies put forth by M. Moore in Fahrenhiet 911. http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/ That does a good job of refuting the most rediculous arguement against the war.
Then there's this interesting article from before the war with this telling quote:
quote:In the present case of Iraq, a pre-emptive war is justified by its advocates on the grounds of past Iraqi aggressions and the logical presumption of future ones—which would make it partly retaliatory and partly preventive. This is fraught with the danger of casuistry since if no sinister weaponry is found before the war begins, then the war is re-justified on the grounds that it prevented such weapons from being developed. (And if the weapons are found, as one suspects they will be, after the intervention has taken place, then they could be retrospectively justified as needful for defense against an attack that was obviously coming.)
See http://www.slate.com/id/2076478/ The extensive stockpiles of WMDs believed to be there haven't materialized. But the Bush administration repeatedly said before the war that its purpose was to stop Iraq before it became and imminent threat. It never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat, the arguement was that we can't wait until it reaches that point. The recent finds of hidden and still deadly WMDs and and disclosures of ties between Bin Ladeen and the Taliban and Saddam further suport the initial justification for the war: Saddam is a danger in the making and must be stopped before it is too late. But some people would just can't "move on" beyond the Bush lied view and won't belive any thing that refutes thier world view.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mig, I don't have the time to fully address it right now, but I'd suggest you look at Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. before you make claims about what was said in the lead up to the war.
This was the speech that pushed me over to a war supporter. It was specifically the information contained in this speech that I later had to appologize to people for believing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: The extensive stockpiles of WMDs believed to be there haven't materialized. But the Bush administration repeatedly said before the war that its purpose was to stop Iraq before it became and imminent threat. It never claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat, the arguement was that we can't wait until it reaches that point. The recent finds of hidden and still deadly WMDs and and disclosures of ties between Bin Ladeen and the Taliban and Saddam further suport the initial justification for the war: Saddam is a danger in the making and must be stopped before it is too late. But some people would just can't "move on" beyond the Bush lied view and won't belive any thing that refutes thier world view.
The Bush administration never claimed Saddam was an imminent threat?? Of course they did, repeatedly.
quote: "This is about imminent threat." • White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
"Absolutely." • White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03
"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended." • President Bush 4/24/03
"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed." • Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended." • Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder." • President Bush, 3/19/03
"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations." • President Bush, 3/16/03
link There are a more quotes at the link.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
National Review isn't really 'published' by a think-tank on a technical level, but it is essentially a think tank publication, being joined at the hip to the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.
They're a pay-to-play organization, especially given that they are the type of magazine that never -- never -- turns a profit.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why use selective quotes to misrepresent the justification for war? Calling Saddam a threat is not the same as saying there was an imminent threat. The point was to take him out before it got to that point. My guess is that to many opponents of the war were too busy Bush-hating and still reeling from the 2000 election that they simply refused to listen to what was actually be said. Why do the opponents of the war think it is necessary to misrepresent the justifications for the war? It appears that for war opponents misrepresentation is probably easier than sticking with the facts.
Here are two quotes from before the war that more fully explain the rational for the war:
Quote from Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union Address:
quote: Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
quote:“Clearly if Saddam Hussein is left in power doing the things that he is doing now this is a threat that will emerge, and emerge in a very big way," she said.
History is littered with cases of inaction that led to have grave consequences for the world. We just have to look back and ask how many dictators who ended up being a tremendous global threat, and killing thousands, and indeed millions of people, should we have stopped in their tracks," she said.
I love Google! After am, admittedly brief, search the only quote I could of a politician who called Iraq an “imminent threat” is this quote from then Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in September 2002:
quote:"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies." Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush – he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country." Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."
quote:That does a good job of refuting the most rediculous arguement against the war.
I just want to point out that refuting the most ridiculous argument against war is not the same thing as offering an argument for war.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spinsanity has a good, apperently unbiased look at the "imminent threat" debate.
But Mig, if you believe Saddam's regime wasn't an "imminent threat", the question becomes, then why was there such a rush to war?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why use selective quotes to misrepresent the justification for war? Calling Saddam a threat is not the same as saying there was an imminent threat. The point was to take him out before it got to that point. My guess is that to many opponents of the war were too busy Bush-hating and still reeling from the 2000 election that they simply refused to listen to what was actually be said. Why do the opponents of the war think it is necessary to misrepresent the justifications for the war? It appears that for war opponents misrepresentation is probably easier than sticking with the facts.
Political debate rule #1: Always accuse your opponent of doing what you yourself are doing.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:That does a good job of refuting the most rediculous arguement against the war.
I just want to point out that refuting the most ridiculous argument against war is not the same thing as offering an argument for war.
And I'd like to point out that refuting the most ridiculous arguments against the war is not the same as refuting the most cogent and rational arguments against a war. I'd think the latter would be more pertinent to the discussion at hand.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, I have to agree with you that the Spinsanity aticle is overall unbiased. Thanks for the link.
As to why go to war if the threat was not "imminent," to again quote from Bush's state of the union: "If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late." In my words, then and now: It was too dangerous to wait until the threat became imminent. We'd be faced today with a situation like we have now in N. Korea, once Saddam fully developed his capabilities, with a fully armed unstable dictator. Or worse yet, an unprovoked attack against us or his neighbours, either directly or through allied terrorists. It's not like Saddam had shown any previous reluctance to attack his neighbours or use WMD, he'd done both. Every European government, and Rep. and Dem leader with access to intelligence belived in the threat then (as demonstrated by the quotes in the link above). Once the inspectors were gone, I belive it likely that Saddam would have reconstituted his program.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:We'd be faced today with a situation like we have now in N. Korea, once Saddam fully developed his capabilities, with a fully armed unstable dictator.
So we pay next to no attention to North Korea, a much bigger threat at that moment (and now), and focus on Saddam? Why?
posted
So now you don't even have to actually be a threat to get invaded - you just have pose a threat that you might become a threat at some unspecified time in the future? If that's true then what country aren't we justified in invading?
The evidence that this was not the justification for war that the Bush administration was presenting us four years ago is that all but the most neoconservative of Americans would have seen how false the above justification is. Unless trying to retroactively justify something that was already done by "their side", I think most people would pretty quickly realize that being a threat of a threat is not enough to merit an invasion. The fact that about half of Americans thought the war was a good idea indicates that Bush had convinced them that Saddam's threat was very imminent indeed.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, that's just what we were persuaded to think. It has since come out that, as many people in the intelligence community were saying, Saddam did not have any nuclear weapons programs, our interpretations of intelligence in favor of Saddam having nuclear weapons programs were downright ludicrous, and our primary source on the subject was (as he had done many times before) outright lying.
Note: I was for the war (though I think much of how it was carried out was dramatically bungled) , and for a mildly similar reason. I felt (and feel) that Saddam's eventual death would have led to huge destabilization in the region, significant enough to, in combination with his blatant violations of the terms of the cessation of the Gulf War, warrant an invasion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and we knew from sources high in Saddam's government that his ministers repeatedly lied to him to avoid disfavor, that the military's organization was abysmal, and that incompetents were continuously being promoted due to political/familial connections.
There was no chance of Saddam 'reconstituting' a nuclear weapons program (that even at its best was hobbled by extreme technological inferiority).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We'd be faced today with a situation like we have now in N. Korea, once Saddam fully developed his capabilities, with a fully armed unstable dictator.
So we pay next to no attention to North Korea, a much bigger threat at that moment (and now), and focus on Saddam? Why?
-pH
I think NK demonstrates what happens when evil regimes are left alone UNTIL they do something.
But at the same time its hard for me to identify at what points we can strike first without overstepping our bounds into "Minority Report" territory.
I've never heard anybody argue that Saddam had he been left alone would not have commited further acts of evil. I've never heard anyone argue that he did not want nuclear weapons. Bush does deserve alittle credit, when AQ Kahn sold nuclear plans to NK, Bush let Musharif deal with it rather than declaring war on pakistan (man that would have sucked if he had.)
When we found out NK had nukes it was impossible to tell exactly who else AQ Kahn had sold plans to. If Kahn was willing to give those plans to NK why would Iraq be a different story? Maybe it is, but I just don't see how.
But perhaps there is a way where we can prove intent and use that as basis to strike. I really don't see how we please everyone. Either we wait for blood to be shed so we can clearly identify who the enemy is, or we nip the problem in the bud and risk the scorn of those who speculate that we guessed wrong.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides the US long having been partial to Pakistan, there's one big reason the US will never be declaring war on Afghanistan: they have a small stockpile of definitely working nuclear weapons. Also, we desperately needed their cooperation to make significant headway in capturing Al Quaeda and Taliban leadership (given many of said leadership retreated to the border regions of Pakistan from Afghanistan).
We know pretty well who AQ Khan sold knowledge to; Iraq is not one of them, and for good reason: they already had access to plenty of plans for nuclear facilities (from the late 70s/early 80s). However, plans aren't very useful absent certain capabilities. NK had those capabilities to a decent extent before Khan sold them weapons information, Iraq did not. Without French assistance, Iraq could never have created the Osiraq reactor, and they never had much of a chance to learn from it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think NK demonstrates what happens when evil regimes are left alone UNTIL they do something.
Then why not deal with that, which is a much more immediate problem, before even THINKING about what other people are going to go insane and be evil dictators and start shooting missles willy-nilly?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
