Nuclear chief: No "smoking gun" in Iraq

[Michael]

hagbard - I'm a Canadian living in the US. I doubt that you really have travelled all that much. I have. First, the places that "hate" Americans don't like Canadians also. They basically consider them one and the same. Most places I've been to like Americans, especially individuals, even if the people don't side with some of the US' political stances.

I was treated better in exactly one country - France. I attribute it to me being from Quebec and speaking French well. Everywhere else it was fairly neutral. I'm a "typical" Canadian, btw. For example, I'm far more polite than the average American I travel with and tend to know more about local history and culture. It doesn't make much different and the Americans I travel with are treated no better or no worse.

Michael

 

[etech]

A smart-assed comment deserves a smart-assed response.

I'm still waiting for your first smart comment.

Try this one again. Can you give me an intelligent response?

"Iraq signed an agreement that it would disarm. For many years it did everything it could to hang on to it's weapons and to hamper the inspectors. This is NOT a new war. It is just the finishing up of the Gulf War. It's been going on for far too long. The sanctions while not intended to do hurt the people of Iraq. Having to maintain the no-fly zones to try and keep Saddam from killing off of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs is expensive and dangerous to US and British forces. Saddam by his defiance keeps the regions unsetteled and in a state of turmoil.

It's time for it to be over."

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Michael
hagbard - I'm a Canadian living in the US. I doubt that you really have travelled all that much. I have. First, the places that "hate" Americans don't like Canadians also. They basically consider them one and the same. Most places I've been to like Americans, especially individuals, even if the people don't side with some of the US' political stances.

Lets see, I've been to Hongkong twice (one time for three months), PRC, Indonesia, Malaysia(x2), Singapore(x2), Thailand(x2), India, France, Great Britian, the Netherlands, and of course, the US many times (lived there for seven years). These trips each lasted for at least three months. I ran into many Americans with Canadian flags on their packs. I didn't wear any flags on my pack, and I did find that when I did tell people where I was from, they got A LOT more friendly and on occasion, would make some less than flattering remark about Americans (and Brits, for that matter). Hard to believe, but I was pro-American at that time, and would get into debates with them. That's my experience.

I was treated better in exactly one country - France. I attribute it to me being from Quebec and speaking French well. Everywhere else it was fairly neutral. I'm a "typical" Canadian, btw. For example, I'm far more polite than the average American I travel with and tend to know more about local history and culture. It doesn't make much different and the Americans I travel with are treated no better or no worse.

Michael

But Michael, how does that address my question? Why then do so many Americans were the maple leaf?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

A smart-assed comment deserves a smart-assed response.

I'm still waiting for your first smart comment.

Try this one again. Can you give me an intelligent response?

"Iraq signed an agreement that it would disarm. For many years it did everything it could to hang on to it's weapons and to hamper the inspectors. This is NOT a new war. It is just the finishing up of the Gulf War. It's been going on for far too long. The sanctions while not intended to do hurt the people of Iraq. Having to maintain the no-fly zones to try and keep Saddam from killing off of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs is expensive and dangerous to US and British forces. Saddam by his defiance keeps the regions unsetteled and in a state of turmoil.

It's time for it to be over."

I already have, you just have a poor memory.

 

[etech]

It is over....you're government is just pumped up to get it going again, for obvious reasons.

That is not an answer. The war with Iraq is not over until the terms of the cease-fire are met. They have not been met.

Obvious reasons, ok I'll bite. Spit it out man, what in your Canadian opinion are the "obvious reasons"

 

[js1973]

"Why then do so many Americans were the maple leaf?"

I don't care to get into the main discussion in this thread , but where do so many Americans were (wear) the maple leaf? Is this supposed to be metaphorical?

 

[Michael]

I asked one American that. They said that someone told them that Canadians were treated better. I asked them if it was true, now that they had travelled around. They had to admit that it didn't seem to make a difference.

Michael

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

It is over....you're government is just pumped up to get it going again, for obvious reasons.

That is not an answer. The war with Iraq is not over until the terms of the cease-fire are met. They have not been met.

Obvious reasons, ok I'll bite. Spit it out man, what in your Canadian opinion are the "obvious reasons"

Check back a bit, no use repeating myself.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

During my last trip to Bali (July 2000) some natives had definitive impressions about travelers. They believed Americans were much friendlier (read:more generous tippers) than our European counterparts and definitely more civil than the Aussies. Of course, one fellow said he liked my jacket but he couldn't afford such clothing . . . so I gave him mine.

If Bush had even the semblance of association between terrorist and Saddam, I might be inclined to support him. To date, he's provided little more than fiery rhetoric.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
During my last trip to Bali (July 2000) some natives had definitive impressions about travelers. They believed Americans were much friendlier (read:more generous tippers) than our European counterparts and definitely more civil than the Aussies. Of course, one fellow said he liked my jacket but he couldn't afford such clothing . . . so I gave him mine.

Well, nobody likes the British tourists. The Aussie tourists have invaded Bali and so there's some resentment there (though I suspect they won't have that problem for a while). I do recall, however, on a ferry between Bali and Lombok I had an encounter with one of those Canadian flagged tourists I was speaking of. "Hey man, we're you from?". The guy gives me a dirty look and says "Detroit". Don't remember any Canadian cities called Detroit. Meeting Americans was actually pretty rare.

As for the Germans, French and Dutch, they were all pretty friendly and one German I hung out with could speak the language fluently. I was surprised by just how well informed these European tourists were of the local culture, and even about events in Canada (and the US). I found this to be the case in most of my travels, both in 1985 and again in 1993. YMMV.

 

[tcsenter]

That was true the first time around, it isn't true this time.

So how long do you think it would have taken to resume inspections without GWB lighting a fire under the UN and Iraq's ass? Another 4 years...10 years...never?

The sooner this inspection thing can be concluded, the sooner the UN will be without justification to maintain the sanctions that have proven to be so harsh on the Iraqi people. Did you want to see that go on for another 4...10...indeterminate number of years?

Now, if GWB wants to pick a fight, why doesn't he go after N. Korea? They are a threat. Of course, I know why, they'd kick your ass (oh, and they don't have the oil).

Did you think that perhaps GWB doesn't want to 'pick a fight' but instead wants to CONCLUDE an unresolved issue that has proven to be a pain in the ass of both the United States and Great Britain, as well as the United Nationas, for 10 years? Hmmm....

At this time, there is no legitimate comparison to be made between Iraq and North Korea. NK hasn't invaded any of its neighbors nor lobbed missiles into the cities of any of its neighbors. Nor has there been a 10 year struggle to get NK to comply with a declaration of disarmament agreed to by NK. Neither does the United States have the "onus" of keeping the peace over on that part of the world, like its long-standing onus of keeping the peace in the Middle East, if for no other reason than to prevent Israel from simply tiring of all the bullsh-t they have to endure and turning the territories of its enemies into one big parking lot, potentially throwing the whole region into violent conflict.

Nor have you mine. The US and Israel haven't met their obligations either, so why should Iraq? What "obligation" in particular are they not meeting to the UN's statisfaction?

Iraq has not met the UN's burden of proof that it has no further WMD capability. The US and Israel have no obligations.

Ok...your turn.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: etech

It is over....you're government is just pumped up to get it going again, for obvious reasons.

That is not an answer. The war with Iraq is not over until the terms of the cease-fire are met. They have not been met.

Obvious reasons, ok I'll bite. Spit it out man, what in your Canadian opinion are the "obvious reasons"

Check back a bit, no use repeating myself.

If I thought you had answered the question I wouldn't have asked. I'll just consider your response as you don't want to answer it.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That was true the first time around, it isn't true this time.

So how long do you think it would have taken to resume inspections without GWB lighting a fire under the UN and Iraq's ass? Another 4 years...10 years...never?

The sooner this inspection thing can be concluded, the sooner the UN will be without justification to maintain the sanctions that have proven to be so harsh on the Iraqi people. Did you want to see that go on for another 4...10...indeterminate number of years?

Now, if GWB wants to pick a fight, why doesn't he go after N. Korea? They are a threat. Of course, I know why, they'd kick your ass (oh, and they don't have the oil).

Did you think that perhaps GWB doesn't want to 'pick a fight' but instead wants to CONCLUDE an unresolved issue that has proven to be a pain in the ass of both the United States and Great Britain, as well as the United Nationas, for 10 years? Hmmm....

At this time, there is no legitimate comparison to be made between Iraq and North Korea. NK hasn't invaded any of its neighbors nor lobbed missiles into the cities of any of its neighbors. Nor has there been a 10 year struggle to get NK to comply with a declaration of disarmament agreed to by NK.

Are you aware that the Korean war has never formally ended? N. Korea sure did lob missiles into cities, those in S. Korea. Here there is a nearly fifty year war unresolved.

Neither does the United States have the "onus" of keeping the peace over on that part of the world, like its long-standing onus of keeping the peace in the Middle East, if for no other reason than to prevent Israel from simply tiring of all the bullsh-t they have to endure and turning the territories of its enemies into one big parking lot, potentially throwing the whole region into violent conflict.

Nor have you mine. The US and Israel haven't met their obligations either, so why should Iraq? What "obligation" in particular are they not meeting to the UN's statisfaction?

Iraq has not met the UN's burden of proof that it has no further WMD capability. The US and Israel have no obligations.

Ok...your turn.

You want me to post all the UN resolutions that Israel has failed to comply with?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: etech

It is over....you're government is just pumped up to get it going again, for obvious reasons.

That is not an answer. The war with Iraq is not over until the terms of the cease-fire are met. They have not been met.

Obvious reasons, ok I'll bite. Spit it out man, what in your Canadian opinion are the "obvious reasons"

Check back a bit, no use repeating myself.

If I thought you had answered the question I wouldn't have asked. I'll just consider your response as you don't want to answer it.

Whatever. You know damn well I've been over this with you many times.

 

[tcsenter]

Are you aware that the Korean war has never formally ended?

The armed conflict effectively ended with the singing of an armistice, a formal agreement. Similar to the one Iraq signed except it has failed to comply with its obligations, unlike North Korea.

N. Korea sure did lob missiles into cities, those in S. Korea. Here there is a nearly fifty year war unresolved.

You're really starting to grasp at thin air...

There is no legitimate comparison at this time between Iraq and NK.

You want me to post all the UN resolutions that Israel has failed to comply with?

Sure, if it makes you feel better.

But we're not talking about Isreal, this is about Iraq. Iraq is the issue, not Israel. If you want to create an Israel thread, feel free, but the title of this thread is

Nuclear chief: No "smoking gun" in Iraq

Does that say Isreal?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Are you aware that the Korean war has never formally ended?

The armed conflict effectively ended with the singing of an armistice, a formal agreement. Similar to the one Iraq signed except it has failed to comply with its obligations, unlike North Korea.

Since when is N. Korea complying with its obligations? Give your head smack, N. Korea is far more of a threat to the planet than is Iraq, yet Bush thinks its a better idea to focus attention on Iraq.

N. Korea sure did lob missiles into cities, those in S. Korea. Here there is a nearly fifty year war unresolved.

You're really starting to grasp at thin air...

There is no legitimate comparison at this time between Iraq and NK.

Says you. Only a few other knucklheads outside this forum believe that.

But we're not talking about Isreal, this is about Iraq. Iraq is the issue, not Israel. If you want to create an Israel thread, feel free, but the title of this thread is

Nuclear chief: No "smoking gun" in Iraq

Does that say Isreal?

As in "smoking gun". N. Korea and Israel both qualify, Iraq doesn't appear to. Need I make it any clear for you?

 

[tcsenter]

Since when is N. Korea complying with its obligations?

Did North Korea attack South Korea since the armistace? I did not know that. What else has North Korea done to break the armistace? Do fill me in on all the details of North Korea breaking the armistace, apparently I've been on Neptune for the last 30 years....

Give your head smack, N. Korea is far more of a threat to the planet than is Iraq

That is your opinion, one which is at odds with the findings and judgement of the United Nations and the International Community which has imposed sanctions upon Iraq in order to contain it. Hmm, let's see, International Community or some ignorant American basher. I'll take International Community, please.

N. Korea and Israel both qualify, Iraq doesn't appear to. Need I make it any clear for you?

Neither NK or Israel are obligated to prove to the United Nations (the international community) that they have no WMD capability, Iraq does. Need I make it any clear for you?

And you still haven't answered my question: The Bush Administration's position is that Iraq has never met its weapons inspection obligations. Can you offer any evidence this is not true?

If you refuse to answer my questions, all the while I am answering yours, I will have no other choice but to reasonably conclude that you have no intent to engage in honest or productive debate but are simply here for troll value.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Since when is N. Korea complying with its obligations?

Did North Korea attack South Korea since the armistace? I did not know that. What else has North Korea done to break the armistace? Do fill me in on all the details of North Korea breaking the armistace, apparently I've been on Neptune for the last 30 years....

Grab a newspaper.

And you still haven't answered my question: The Bush Administration's position is that Iraq has never met its weapons inspection obligations. Can you offer any evidence this is not true?

Yeah, grab a newspaper. I believe that UN inspectors are there at this very moment

If you refuse to answer my questions, all the while I am answering yours, I will have no other choice but to reasonably conclude that you have no intent to engage in honest or productive debate but are simply here for troll value.

You haven't answered anything, you've made unsubstantial claims, which isn't too surprising given your mentor.

 

[WoofyJr]

Hmm, do u think that US will attack IRAQ, even though, U.N. delcared NONE WMD evidence found after Jan 27th??? I just learned that French will probably send troops to help attack IRAQ only if UN supports... It sounds as like if French knew that IRAQ does have WMD...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Did North Korea attack South Korea since the armistace? I did not know that. What else has North Korea done to break the armistace? Do fill me in on all the details of North Korea breaking the armistace, apparently I've been on Neptune for the last 30 years....

Armed insurgents by the sea, naval conflicts, and prohibited weapons in the DMZ . . .

I just learned that French will probably send troops to help attack IRAQ only if UN supports... It sounds as like if French knew that IRAQ does have WMD...

Somebody explain this to me. The French certainly KNOW that Iraq has materials that could be used to manufacture WMD . . . in part b/c some French companies (and the government) sold the goods. I wouldn't equate that with knowing the current status WMD in Iraq.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well, nobody likes the British tourists. The Aussie tourists have invaded Bali and so there's some resentment there (though I suspect they won't have that problem for a while). I do recall, however, on a ferry between Bali and Lombok I had an encounter with one of those Canadian flagged tourists I was speaking of. "Hey man, we're you from?". The guy gives me a dirty look and says "Detroit". Don't remember any Canadian cities called Detroit. Meeting Americans was actually pretty rare.

I would say Singapore tolerates the Brits. Then again, most people don't get out of line in that borderline fascist state . . . but it's a damn clean fascist state. The Aussies were pretty caustic. I'm sure most are decent people but a very vocal minority just plain bite. I think some Indonesians are still a touch upset over Aussie troops going to E.Timor. During my week on Java there was a bombing outside the Aussie embassy.

I met a member of an 80s girl band in a convenience store on Kuta Beach, otherwise didn't see many Americans on Bali, either. It makes me wonder about the whole Al Qaeda-Bali bombing link. Anybody with a clue would know Americans aren't the primary Bali tourist.

They've got good mob violence as well. Thugs beat down a peaceful protest against government policy . . . the kind of thing that never happens in America . . . well at least not recently.

 

[tcsenter]

Armed insurgents by the sea, naval conflicts, and prohibited weapons in the DMZ...

The problem with prohibited weapons in the DMZ is that SK does the same thing, so its not a unilateral type of action. They have been playing a little game of cat and mouse over there forever, nothing that fundamentally or materially 'endangers' the armistace.

The armistace was simply to end THAT armed conflict (from 1950 to 1953), neither North Korea or South Korea signed a treaty of non-aggression or non-proliferation which might be construed to prohibit one or the other from having a military presense, or engaging in military exercises, or policing their borders, land or sea. The armistace simply halted the fighting, said you go on that side of the line, and you go on that side of the line, each country gets to maintain all the rights of any sovereign country and neither conceeds any 'defeat'.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Here's the rub, tcsenter. If you listen to American commentators the common folk are being led to believe that American troops are all that retards a NK invasion. There's no question the 38K American troops are an additional deterrent to crossing the DMZ but I would say it is teritary to a heavily mined DMZ and the South Korean military.

Regardless, as long as US troops are stationed on the peninsula we have a responsibility to take part in negotiations. It should be an active role . . . not the Dr. No routine that seems borrowed from the Jesse Helms book of diplomacy for the yellow people.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I met a member of an 80s girl band in a convenience store on Kuta Beach, otherwise didn't see many Americans on Bali, either. It makes me wonder about the whole Al Qaeda-Bali bombing link. Anybody with a clue would know Americans aren't the primary Bali tourist.

When I said that meeting Americans was fairly rare, I meant throughout Asia, not Bali in particular. And yes, the bombers were not targeting Americans, they were targeting Australians for supporting the US in their "War on Terrorism", at least, that's the story.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

When I said that meeting Americans was fairly rare, I meant throughout Asia, not Bali in particular. And yes, the bombers were not targeting Americans, they were targeting Australians for supporting the US in their "War on Terrorism", at least, that's the story.

My bad . . . but it doesn't matter b/c I've traveled through East and SE Asia with little interaction with Americans; with the exception of SK but the more Americans you hang out with the less likely the Koreans want to chill.