Here's a question for you....

[PaceAdvantage]

The following question has been bugging the heck out of me since 9/11:

If terrorists (specifically, those of the al-queda kind) really had the ability to strike the US with chemical, biological or nuclear/radioactive weaponry on a scale that would case mass casualities, why o why haven't they attempted to use these weapons on their #1 closest enemy, Israel?????????????????

It seems logical to me that if these guys had the ability to carry out what the gov't is scaring everyone into thinking they have the ability to carry out, they would have used this stuff on Israel a long, LONG time ago.....makes a lot more sense, doesn't it??

This is why I have a hard time believing that we are in any real mortal danger of being attacked with a weapon of "mass destruction"


Comments??

==PA

[BillW]

They didn't hit Israel with the plane thing first either. I think in their eyes we are all infidels.

The risk of the WMD is Hussein selling bio/chem/nuc to terrorist bands, not necessarily using them himself. They have money, he has the production capability ... if left unchecked, a perfect marriage.

Bill

[JustRalph]

Israel also has much better security than we do. They shoot and ask questions later. 11 soon to be pilots couldn't have floated around Israel getting pilot training without being detected. :cool:

[hurrikane]

a big piece of the puzzle is not the chemicals themselves but the ability to deliver them. The top shelf Iraqi missle warfare were Scuds. We all saw how effective they were. The point of the sanctions is to prevent Sadamn from having the ablilty to deliver the chemicals, radioactivity, etc. That is the threat.

Sadamn has had the chemicals for decades. Just ask any Kurd.

[Tom]

I think they know that if the attacked Israel like that we would repsond immediately, probably with nuclear warheads. They don't want ot face us directly-thier MO is that of cowards-sneak in, hit, and die or run. Then let us fight and argue with rest of the world
over who is responsible.
If we go into Iraq, I think Sodamn will launch whatever he can against Israel and Turkey.
I think we are in for more attacks, but not right away. I think they are sending us false signals right now, and have done so before, to lull us back into a state of security. Like 9-10-01. Then they will Strike. You won't see these bottom feeders coming up to anyone head on-it is not their way. We are dealing with back-stabbers and mad dogs, not men
If they launched anything at Israel, it would be traceable.
Just look at 911....yeah, they got the first three planes before we knew what was going on, but as soon those brave souls on the fourth caught wind of it, the game was over. These are weak little piss-ants we are dealing with. they can only hope to win when the catch us off guard. You will never see then stand up for their beliefs-they are ankle-grabbers at heart.
Our solution is to never be off our guard.

[Amazin]

OOPS,silly me.How did I get here?Well hello again my right wing PA members.I'm sure you're glad to see me again.Hold the applause.

Funny you should ask that question PA.Donald Rumseld has just stated that the U.S.would not rule out using a nuclear weopon against Iraq.Here's the story.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-rontz&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20030213%2F130588197.htm&sc=rontz&photoid=20030206WX125

Point is that maybe it is the U.S. who's itching to use their weapons of mass destruction,but must first accuse those who don't have them as threats in order to justify their use.That's why "Terrosrists" haven't used them against Israel.They don't have them. You say Israel has security,then explain how all those suicide bombers get thru.Time and time again.When there's a will there's a way.However I don't think the Bush administration would be stupid enough to talk about using it's nuclear weoapons on a country that really had them,like N.Korea.Are you kidding.Everyone would run home right now from work to be with their loved ones before world destruction.The most ironic thing about Rumsfeld's statement is that he wants to use weapons of mass destruction on a country that he forbids to own,hasn't found any and accuses of carrying without evidence..Also if you believe the lie of us going in there and saving the Iraqui people,there wouldn't be many people left to save and those would die from radiation poisoning.Also,the neighbors that we are trying to save wouldn't really appreciate being downstream from radioactive clouds.So how does that help our neighbors and Iraqui people we care so much about.

[BillW]

appropriate moniker :eek:

[azibuck]

They haven't used weapons of mass destruction on Israel, because if they did they would be using weapons of mass destruction on Palestine. They would be nuking/gassing their own people. I'm not an expert, but I don't think those types of weapons can be so precise as to only hit the "bad" side of Jerusalem.

This also answer's Amazin:

You say Israel has security,then explain how all those suicide bombers get thru.

Those suicide bombers are low-level INHABITANTS of the region. There is no "getting through". They're there.

Israel has great high-level security. It's kind of tough to spot the suicide bomber in a crowded street where no one outwardly looks out of place. I've never done it, but I would also guess it's easier to make, move, and conceal a bomb the size of a briefcase, than to do the same with nuclear weapons. Bio is another story, but again, they're not going to release them on the street in Jerusalem.

I'm against invading Iraq. I guess that makes me a left-wing wuss. We should have finished the job in 1990. We didn't. Doesn't mean we should look for any excuse, like a very weak dotted line to Al-Queda, or phantom weapons stockpiles, to correct our mistake now.

I use the phrase "phantom weapons" because I don't know. I don't know if they have them. I don't know if the Inspectors know what they're doing. I don't know about our own government.

[Amazin]

Azi wrote:
"Those suicide bombers are low-level INHABITANTS of the region. There is no "getting through". They're there."

If that were true then why is Israel spending so much money building a barrier that would rival the great wall of China,to keep Palestinians out.Why would Israel go on Air Raids in the Gaza,Jenin,etc,bulldoze Palestinian homes and Businesses outside of Israel,and blow up bridges with ties to Israel.Keep Palestinians from entering Israel with lenghty checkpoints which result in most getting turned away.Everytime there is a suicide bombing,palestinians die as a result of Israeli raids OUTSIDE of Israel.I don't think Israel is going to raid itself.

[azibuck]

I don't know about this New Great Wall, but it sounds like it's not built yet. No wall, open border. That would make easier to move around. The fact is, Israelis and Palestinians live in close proximity, and unless there are strip searches, and cars are dismantled at every checkpoint, they'll "get through", as much as one "gets through" by walking across town.

[PaceAdvantage]

I do understand the point about not craping in one's own backyard, and thus the argument that they don't attack Israel with WMD because they would be fouling their own land....

However, we hear about Anthrax threats, smallpox threats, cyanide threats, dirty bomb threats (which would contaminate a relatively small area of land)....

These could all easily be used against Israel without contaminating a large portion of outside territory. And they could easily be gotten into the country. So, the question remains, why, if they have this stuff, do they still resort to the suicide bomber blowing himself up at the friendly neighborhood bus stop??????

And the argument that they don't want to foul their own lands with this stuff doesn't hold when you realize these guys are supposed to be fanaticals who are willing to DIE for their cause....


==PA

[BillW]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage

And the argument that they don't want to foul their own lands with this stuff doesn't hold when you realize these guys are supposed to be fanaticals who are willing to DIE for their cause....


==PA

PA,

Specifically on this point: I don't think this is really the case. Religion has been used through out history to control the masses. This fanatacism doesn't exist at the top (bin laden ran and hid in Afghanistan while singing the praises if martyrdom to the lackies fighting for him ... probably got a bit of a chuckle out of it too). The top level people know better. I would guess that a even a few of the 9/11 hijackers were not informed of the full scope of their mission till after being airborne.

They probably are fanatic enough to believe their land has some sort of magical significance. Terrorism would be a meaningless pursuit otherwise.

[Tom]

OFF TOPIC FOR OFF TOPIC...THIS IS HORSES (sorry)
We're neighbors!
Do you go to Finger Lakes?
Maybe we've met before.
they have a handicapping contest there Saturday...might give it a try.

[Tom]

Originally posted by BillW
appropriate moniker :eek:

And looK at all the money he saves by not having to have third party colonostomies.
:eek: :eek:

[Lefty]

Here's a question: Why do liberals hate the U.S. so much?
Now, that's Amazing to me.

[Derek2U]

Lefty are U planning to develop the other half of your brain?
Not the typing half, but the one that reasons. This world is
complicated & won't be divided by liberal-conservative only.

[Lefty]

Derek, the question was: why do liberals hate the U.S? I know the world is complicated but liberals seem to think our enemies are just nice people and everything would just be "rosy" if the U.S. just lay back and do nothing.

[sq764]

I get the impression that every other country finds us to be arrogant.. I can see it.

I was in Canada last year and you could tell that the Canadians as a whole think America is a bunch of pompous arrogant jackasses, but they tolerate us because we have a superior army.. (Just my twisted opinion actually)..

I was surprised when they said several countries found America to be more of a threat to peace than Iraq.. That's discouraging..

[Lefty]

The other countries take our money, want our help when they're threatened and call us arrogent when they are not. I for one don't give a damn what the other countries think. If it wasn't for us God knows what the state of the world would be; probably no democracies at all.

[sq764]

But the reality is that moron Bush has put his foot so far in his mouth that there is no way out now.

If we don't go to war, we will seem like cowards.

[Lefty]

Bush no moron nor does he have his foot in his mouth. Iraq will comply or we'll go to war. Too many are willing to stand by until N. Korea sells Sadaam a nuke and a delivery system. Get rid of Sadaam and then lean on N. Korea. At last, a president with a backbone.

[BillW]

sq,

What was your opinion of Clinton in '98 when he came out and said that taking out Hussein was a necessity. I believe he suggested war as a remedy. I'm just trying to find out where you are coming from ... is it only moronic when a Republican president is in favor of war?.

[sq764]

Please do not defend Clinton, the same man who sat back and got a bj while he could have taken out Bin Laden.. You know, back when he was a KNOWN threat and was ignored.

[sq764]

Lefty, you really think getting rid of Sadam will solve this?

Won't that spark many more suicide attacks?

[Lefty]

Sq, it's a step in right direction. We can't be afraid to act because the enemy might get mad. We've been attacked and if we don't defend ourselves by taking out the "bad" guys things will just get worse.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by sq764
Lefty, you really think getting rid of Sadam will solve this?

Won't that spark many more suicide attacks?

They will attack anyway. They are not going to stop.....:cool:

[Rexdale You]

IMHP,,,,With the exception of WMD being produced by uncle Sam,,,,Consumerism is in the doldrums,,,, Maybe when you see designer duct tape or designer gasmasks on the Walmart shelfs,,,( Made in China of course.),,,,It may sink in this is a diversion for the masses,,,,Wall St ripoff artists are laughing,,,,:mad: :mad: :eek: :eek: Rexdale You

[Lefty]

I can't believe so many believe in so many conspiracies. Tch, tch...

[Derek2U]

I just wish you could be happy even if it meant you be democrat
+ liberal. Try to be happy & understand that, although this is a
horse board -- and U have noT ever posted anything horsey --
that this room provides U with therapy. So, send me $10K now ...
even @ 25/hr thats a bargain to U. Lefty join our P4 contest ...
not now, cause like ur political ideas, ur too late, but please join
us in the War Room or make your picks at our Next P4 contest.
(Read for details)... lets see if ur picks are as relevant as ur ideas!
Derek JC

[Lefty]

Derek, i'm all over the horse board.
I formulate my picks at the racebook as close to posttime as possible. I feel no need to post them.
Yes, this is offtopic and I enjoy the debates. I know you don't since you never offer anything relevent but only do some childish namecalling.
I am a happy man.

[Lindsay]

Lefty wrote:

"Derek...Yes, this is offtopic and I enjoy the debates. I know you don't since you never offer anything relevent but only do some childish namecalling."

I have to take exception to this. Derek is a witty and perceptive contributor to this board. I always look forward to his irreverence and his sense of humor.

[Derek2U]

Lefty .. u find "NO NEED" to post your selections yet you MUST
have the need to yack ur political ideas. Could that be because
YOUR picks could be judged as WRONG or RIGHT? For all to see.
Politics aside, your a coward. Yeah just send our guys over there
to really fight yet you can't even post your picks. Now aint that
fair?

[Lefty]

Derek, what does posting picks or not have to do with politics? Your argument is non analagous.
I don't post picks.
I argue politics.
My choice.
You think i'm a coward, just proves you don't know me.
If you want my picks send me $40 a month and you shall have them. That's what I charged a few yrs ago.

[Dave Schwartz]

Derek,

IMLTHO, you are out of line with you name calling of Lefty.

And, as far as I am concerned, any vet that did his duty (such as Lefty did) has earned the right to have (and voice) an opinion when it comes to war.


Dave Schwartz

[Tom]

Amen to that. Governments might be wrong, wars might be injust, but the vets are doing their jobs for us and for freedom and we owe them all big time. It's a shmae the way our own governement idiots let down those with Guld War syndrome, like wise the VN vets and all their health problems. Yet congress, in spite of everything, just passed a HUGE new spending bill with-I think I heard-$400 million in pure USA pork under the assumption that Bush would not veto a homeland security bill. These POS people are traitors.

[Derek2U]

There's TONS of info about HOW our VN vets have been
treated --- and it sucks --- but who really betrayed them? Our
own govt --- Their own govt -- by lying to them about agent orange & lots of other stuff. So, in a way, its the dove
whistle blowers who were right: Guys your being F...ED over by your own military and your own commander-in-chief and his
lap dogs.

[andicap]

Lefty,
It's OK to love the U.S., as I do, and not like the government.
When conservatives were criticizing the government in the 90s when Clinton was president, or in the 70s under Carter, or even in the 30s under FDR, were they being unpatriotic?
Not at all. Liberals (or moderates for that matter) never questioned the patriotism of people who sharply criticized the U.S. under Democratic regimes.
In fact, in 1941, the shoe was on the other foot. Most people on the right were ANTI-war, isolationists who wanted to let Great Britain fight their own war.
Hell, the Lend-Lease Act was even unpopular.

But did the people who wanted to stop Hitler (mostly Democrats) believe the isolationists (largely conservative) were unpatriotic?
No they didn't. They didn't say to them, "love it or leave it."

The fact that all wars since WW I started with Democrats showed the party is NOT afraid to engage the enemy when it is needed.

I don't mind debating people about the merits of fighting in Iraq. But I do resent people questioning my love for the United States.
I would assure you that 90% -- or more -- of the peace movement in this country love the U.S. as much as the war hawks. We love our freedoms. We love our ability to protest. We love the Constitution and the system of checks and balances.

It is when people say we shouldn't protest, that we're being
unpatroitic that makes us angry. For it is the people who do not want to be able to protest who are the true anti-Americans. They are the ones against what America stands for: freedom and the First Amendment.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by andicap
I don't mind debating people about the merits of fighting in Iraq. But I do resent people questioning my love for the United States.
I would assure you that 90% -- or more -- of the peace movement in this country love the U.S. as much as the war hawks. We love our freedoms. We love our ability to protest. We love the Constitution and the system of checks and balances.

It is when people say we shouldn't protest, that we're being
unpatroitic that makes us angry. For it is the people who do not want to be able to protest who are the true anti-Americans. They are the ones against what America stands for: freedom and the First Amendment.


HERE HERE ANDI!!!

Excellent points. Love the last 2 paragraphs.....even though I am not the type who would march in any of the protest we've seen to date....I LOVE the fact that this country allows and tolerates these kinds of demonstrations.

I fear that one day these freedoms may be eroded to the point that we won't recognize what America once stood for....


==PA

[Doug]

PA WROTE,

I fear that one day these freedoms may be eroded to the point that we won't recognize what America once stood for....

If that should happen I believe the reason for it would be because some folks think that their individual rights are more important than the groups rights.

Doug

[Suff]

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin that said.

"Any Man who gives up an ounce of Liberty for an ounce of Protection, deserves niether".



The Federal Govt's answer to most threats is to Infringe on the Mass's civil Liberties and Right of Free Movement.

Flown on a Plane Lately?.............

[Lefty]

No where did I say if you questioned the govt. you were unpatriotic. Didn't say it.
I have said liberals (the ones in power)never questioned Clinton about anything but put down Geo. W for some of the same things.
Hey, if Clinton had done his job and gotten rid of Sadaam after he kicked the inspectors out first time there would be no need to do it now.
If Clinton hadn't foolishly taken N. Korea's word that they would only use nuclear technology for power and not develop weapons we wouldn't be needing to come to grips with that situation.
If you're protesting this war and your banners criticize only Bush and not Sadaam too, then that doesn't make you anti-american but it makes you the pawn of some bigtime Bush hating liberals.

[Derek2U]

Why don't you leave the USA & move to Iran? After all, on
so many of your posts you do nothing but bad-mouth this country's past presidents ---- or maybe its only the Democrats
like Clinton & Carter. At any rate, I think its Un-Patriotic to do
what you do .... Do you even think what would happen if any
of our past presidents had your loose lips?

[Tom]

Sure, bring logic and common sense into all this. That's not fair!
<G>
I agree with you, though. As one who has been on both sides, I know (now) that demonstrations must be taken with a grain of salt. MANY of the people I protested with in the 70's were there for the party and were against the war and government just because it was cool to be so. Not all, but many. The ones that really cared the most wer not out burning flags and matching-they were behind the scences, doing political things, supporting dove candidates (McGorvern was my main man-what happen becasue of watergate caused me to not vote anymore-intil Clinton won! I re-registered the next day lol)
Yes, the right too demonstrate is primary to our freedom.
The right to ignore those marching is also that of our leaders.
I really hate to say this, but remember the silent majority>
(Oh GOD, that hurt to say that!).

PA-
I think a war is not the answer, but it may be the only avenue since they will not give him up. I f his general turned him over, or killed him, there would be no need to go war and I would be totally against it. I never favor wars of election, and I only tolerate wars of nessecity - but that seems to be where we all go our seperate ways. Is it nessecary to remove Sadamn Insane?
I believe it is, but I think the El Qeda/Bin LAden issue is more pressing and the N Korean issue more dangerous. I think the Bush administration has erred in picking Iraq, but I cannot not support the decision - I have to trust that they kn ow what they are doing and may know more than any of us. If it were Bush alon, I would have issues, but Collin Powell is very adamant in his position, and I have to respect him becasue he has been there and fought this enemy before.
I truly hope that we can avoid war - I think the UN should be coming up with alternatives with more substance than blue helmets to stop us of wasting more time on inspections. Perhaps if the UN indoicted Sodamn for his past war crimes alone and demanded that he be turned over, we might get somewhere.
The UN has no back bone and is a complete failure and embarresment to the world. Not only now, but in all the genocides that have occurred in Europe and Africa and Asia since WW2 ended.
War is never an answer - but it is sometimes unavoidable.
It is always sickening and disgusting.

[Lefty]

Derek, your post makes no sense. You dare to call me unpatriotic?
I should move to Iran when I champion the defeating of all dictatorships including Sadaams?
I bad mouth Clinton and Carter because they were terrible Presidents and these two do have loose lips and have broken the unwritten rule.
Your post is the epitome of nonsense.

[andicap]

Plenty of liberals dispised Clinton! They also hated Carter. Why did Teddy kennedy run for President in 1980. The Liberals thought Carter was too conservative, the morons.
Liberals are often as strident as conservatives. They shoot their own, they don't like to compromise.
Yes, in the best of all possible worlds, I would like a moderate liberal to be president, but most of all I want to win. Most people in the U.S. are somewhere near the center, either slightly left of center, center, or slightly right of center.
I think Tom has a pretty typical philosophy -- suspicious of big institutions, but strongly in favor of personal freeddoms.
that's why many liberals get me so mad. They voted for Ralph Nader because they thought Al Gore was too mainstream and now they've got the an ultra-conservative government.
I swear, some days I just want to move to Canada --- the left and the right are so screwed up!

[Lefty]

andicap, Bush no Ultra-conservative. I wish he was. My dream:that someday they can clone Ronald Reagan.