O'reilly Vs. Moore

[Sprocket]

Originally posted by hobbes@29 July 2004 - 16:47


For the final time (meaning I used this analogy before- with pictures&#33 If a rattlesnake bites you and you see a cobra. Do you ignore the cobra because it is not a rattlesnake. A threat is a threat.

The rattlesnake taught you to be wary. Best to kill the snake in his hole.

To continue you managled analogy....
If you are bitten by a cobra you turn around and shoot a cocker spaniel?
Iraq HAD NO CONNECTIONS to Al-Qaeda.
Militant Muslims were as big a threat to Saddam as the US was.
He had no desire to cede one iota of power/control to mullahs or their followers.
Iraq DID NOT attack us.

[Biggles]

Hobbes

Surely if a rattlesnake bites you, your priority would be to go to the nearest hospital and not to fly off to the ME to bat cobras on the head.

I am also sure I saw something in the Lion King about the circle of life - you can't denude the world of snakes, you will upset the ecological balance.

Whilst Ghadaffi is now on-side he was leaning that way anyway.

The lesson Iran has learned is that if you have nukes like N. Korea and Pakistan you have a bit of breathing space. However, their only value is retaliatory - Iraq if they had acquired such weapons would have been secure from further invasion and may well have been in a position to negotiate away the no-fly zones and sanctions. I believe that Saddam was pursuing political goals, not ones of world domination. His track record would suggest that he was a player of such games rather than a serious military threat.

Having said that, Iraq should be better off without him - although their history would suggest that they tend towards internal conflict and power struggles. Afghanistan and Iraq are going to be works in progress for the UK and US tax payer for some time to come and we may not even like the end result.

One gets the impression that if Mr Blair and Mr Bush never hear the phrase WMD again it will be too soon.

[Rat Faced]

I disagree J2,

The USA was highly respected just 10 years ago, apart from the people you'll never please.

Just 2.5 years ago, the whole world was behind you...again, apart from the ones you'll never please.


It takes real skill to get so low in the popularity stakes so quickly.


Covet your wallets?

Well, ok you have more millionaires per head of population than most places, credit where its due.

The majority of Americans however have considerably less in their wallets than most of the citizens of Western Europe.

Most people I know would rather live in a country where a company has less rights than a person, and where if they fell ill or on hard times there is a Welfare State to catch them.

Nice place to visit, but i wouldnt wanna live there


I think in all, you'll find out that the people that hate you dont covet you.

They dont want what you have, it goes against what they believe.

They just want you to play fair.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 21:07

To continue you managled analogy....
If you are bitten by a cobra you turn around and shoot a cocker spaniel?
Iraq HAD NO CONNECTIONS to Al-Qaeda.
Militant Muslims were as big a threat to Saddam as the US was.
He had no desire to cede one iota of power/control to mullahs or their followers.
Iraq DID NOT attack us.

1. Calling something mangled, does not make it mangled. My analogy is perfect.

2. You don't shoot a cocker spaniel because it is not seen as a threat. You might shoot a rabid foaming at the mouth one, though.

3.Iraq has no connections to Al Queda- who cares. A rabid cocker spaniel has no relation to a cobra. I shoot both.

4 and 5- ?

6. Iraq did not attack us- Well, in the spirit of things they did attempt to assassinate George senior.

But that is the point, they did not attack us because we did not let them. A stitch in time saves 9. 9/11 suggested that we quench the embers before the flame can develop.

Now again, the crux is that Bush must have firmly believed that Saddam had weapons. I've already stated what I think.

Stop disrespecting my analogies and who the hell am I talking to.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 18:07
Iraq HAD NO CONNECTIONS to Al-Qaeda.

Several respected Senators charged with ascertaining the truth of that precise question beg to differ.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@29 July 2004 - 21:08
Hobbes
I believe that Saddam was pursuing political goals, not ones of world domination. His track record would suggest that he was a player of such games rather than a serious military threat.

Biggles,

I don't believe that Bin Laden was interested in world domination either. My only fear of Saddam is that he would find some boys to take one of his nuclear missles and fly it into the World Trade Center. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Imagine 9/11, with hydrogen bombs on board.

That would in no way help Saddam become a world power, but it would certainly have us crapping our pants.

The trick is that the people on the plane would have no apparent connection to Saddam. That's how you work this. Saddam might even get on TV and look longingly at the camera and state something eloquent about a "tradgedy for mankind, after all, we are all human beings". Then laugh his ass on in his favorite bunker.

And you spelled Kaddaffi wrong!

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 July 2004 - 18:12
I disagree J2,

The USA was highly respected just 10 years ago, apart from the people you'll never please.

Just 2.5 years ago, the whole world was behind you...again, apart from the ones you'll never please.


It takes real skill to get so low in the popularity stakes so quickly.


Covet your wallets?

Well, ok you have more millionaires per head of population than most places, credit where its due.

The majority of Americans however have considerably less in their wallets than most of the citizens of Western Europe.

Most people I know would rather live in a country where a company has less rights than a person, and where if they fell ill or on hard times there is a Welfare State to catch them.

Nice place to visit, but i wouldnt wanna live there


I think in all, you'll find out that the people that hate you dont covet you.

They dont want what you have, it goes against what they believe.

They just want you to play fair.

Geez, can't a guy even be cynical?!?!??

Anyway, the term was "beloved", not "respected".

[Rat Faced]

"Iraq" did have connections with Al-Queda.

They had a couple of training camps in the North of the country, controlled by the Kurds. Every time Saddam sent troops up that way, possibly to remove them, or possibly to attack the Kurds... we bombed him

Mr Hussain also executed a few for terrorism.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+29 July 2004 - 23:25--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 July 2004 - 23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sprocket@29 July 2004 - 18:07
Iraq HAD NO CONNECTIONS to Al-Qaeda.

Several respected Senators charged with ascertaining the truth of that precise question beg to differ. [/b][/quote]
The connections were, given the evidence to date, limited. Both sides toyed with idea but the ideological gulf was too great for any serious partnership.

It was the US that trained the terrorist pilots that attacked on 9/11 and it was US stores that sold them their knives. However, not even the most rabid conspiracy theorist would suggest a linkage between AQ and the US (well one or two might )

AQ recruits primarily in the ME and people travel throughout the region working, studying and going on religious pilgrimages. There are also people of power in Saudi and Iranian circles who, if not pro AQ, turn a blind eye to their movements. Iraq was hardly the prime mover in these activities.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by hobbes+29 July 2004 - 23:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 29 July 2004 - 23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@29 July 2004 - 21:08
Hobbes
I believe that Saddam was pursuing political goals, not ones of world domination. His track record would suggest that he was a player of such games rather than a serious military threat.

Biggles,

I don&#39;t believe that Bin Laden was interested in world domination either. My only fear of Saddam is that he would find some boys to take one of his nuclear missles and fly it into the World Trade Center. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Imagine 9/11, with hydrogen bombs on board.

That would in no way help Saddam become a world power, but it would certainly have us crapping our pants.

The trick is that the people on the plane would have no apparent connection to Saddam. That&#39;s how you work this. Saddam might even get on TV and look longingly at the camera and state something eloquent about a "tradgedy for mankind, after all, we are all human beings". Then laugh his ass on in his favorite bunker.

And you spelled Kaddaffi wrong&#33; [/b][/quote]
Hobbes


Perhaps, although I think AQ or similar agents would be more likely to buy an ex-Soviet warhead on the black market. Saddam tended to move politically rather than erratically (like a mad baddie in the 60s Batman series).



I have also seen it spelt Quadaffi. Arabic words tend to be moveable feasts on the spelling front