Nobel laureates oppose war against Iraq

Originally posted by Moiraine: Then the nations can even less base that war on Iraq having or not WOMD. Since they cannot base a decision on information they don't have. [img]smile.gif[/img] If you read some of the earlier resolutions by the UN you will note that it is a matter of fact that Iraq has and has had weapons of Mass destruction. The US move to attack is based on two things. 1. Iraq's refusal to disarm for 12 years and 2. Aid and comfort he is giving terrorists groups and activities. to say there is no basis behind this is to deny maters of history and recorded fact. Well, not exactly. He has enough relations to keep in touch, and he has enough experience to know the inside of world politics and to keep better informed than we could, and he has enough notoriety to be able to speak to influential political personnalities. Which he had to do anyway to take care of developping programs for poor people all over the world. [img]smile.gif[/img] By that standard, you should accept my personal word that the war on Iraq is necessary, because I had 6 more years of access to the real intelligence and activities of Iraq than he did in his 4 years as president...more over, my personal involvement is 10 years more recent than his [img]smile.gif[/img] That is a funny comment related to the suggestion you posted on GD that the US should have as many votes in the UN as they have states. well the two only appear superficially to be related but really aren't [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ar-Cunin]

On a lighter note - I wasn't surpriced to see that Kissinger wasn't among the signers

[Timber Loftis]

MagiK, just to point it out: the tie of the JC nomination to Bush's bloodlust was made by the MEDIA (note: remember you hate the media), which snapped up the opportunity when one footnote comment was made. Once the media got it, the Repugs ran with it.

Oh, and note that these days the media is accused of being controlled by Republicans. Go fig.

But, if you buy that stuff about the Carter nomination being made simply to irk Bush, you really need to quit surfing the RNC websites so much because it's brainwashing you. I'm not arguing Carter's effectiveness as a President or Bush's - I'm simply stating that this connection is drawn by people who get paid to poo poo things by making such connections.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: Moiraine, Nobel laurates are acknowledged for their expertise in a specific filed. Seeking their thoughts about war and the dangers posed by Saddam is akin to asking Barbara Streisand for her opinion on how a war should be fought...or even IF it should be fought. Like it or not, the only people really qualified to make the decisions are those who have access to the highest levels of intelligence material....aka heads of state and the Military type advisors. Hollywood actors, and nuclear physicists have no more knowledge of the issue than your average man on the street....or at least thats how I see it. Edit: Just out of curiosity, where were these notables when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in norther Iraq? and why didn't they go to Iran as Human shields when The US was helping Iraq in its war against Iran (where chemical and bioagents were used by Iraq)? And where the Heck were all the hollywood stars when Clinton used cruise missiles to blow up an asprin factory? Sorry....just some things I was wondering but are really off topic I suppose.

I thought you swore off the serious war forum... [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

I am sorry but I do not find the "Its top secret and you dont know any better" argument for a "a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support" very compelling.

U.S. lawmakers and world goverments oppose the war for very specific and detailed reason and have access to "high" levels of data.

With-out a smoking gun, the push for "a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support" (it's just fun to say! [img]smile.gif[/img] ) is based in speculation and shallow good-vs-evil moralism.

If the U.S goverment is holding out data, they do so to their own discredit.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: MagiK, just to point it out: the tie of the JC nomination to Bush's bloodlust was made by the MEDIA (note: remember you hate the media), which snapped up the opportunity when one footnote comment was made. Once the media got it, the Repugs ran with it. Oh, and note that these days the media is accused of being controlled by Republicans. Go fig. I don't know anyone who thinks the republicans control the media. From my perspective all the major players in the media except Fox and Talk Radio is in the hip pocket of the Dems. But, if you buy that stuff about the Carter nomination being made simply to irk Bush, you really need to quit surfing the RNC websites so much because it's brainwashing you. I'm not arguing Carter's effectiveness as a President or Bush's - I'm simply stating that this connection is drawn by people who get paid to poo poo things by making such connections.

I really don't think ol JC is all that bad, but he had a majorly poor track record as president and he is waaaaaay out of touch with matters of State at this point.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I thought you swore off the serious war forum... [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] Well I know you didn't miss me but some people actually did and asked me to come back.....and sooooo being an agreeable sort of fellow...here I am I am sorry but I do not find the "Its top secret and you dont know any better" argument for a "a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support" very compelling. Colin Powell laid out the administrations case. This case seems to have been enough to convince the majority of nations that there is just cause. The number of nations officially blocking a US move is rather sparse....and the key players have rather LARGE financial concerns involved. U.S. lawmakers and world goverments oppose the war for very specific and detailed reason and have access to "high" levels of data. US lawmakers...interesting you should mention that...seems to me that only certain people with presidential aspirations are actively working against a US move....Congress CAN stop the president from taking action...it is within their power. With-out a smoking gun, the push for "a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support" (it's just fun to say! [img]smile.gif[/img] ) is based in speculation and shallow good-vs-evil moralism. There is no need for a smoking gun. No one has to prove Saddam has anything to give the US a legitimate reason to act....the way the UN resolutions were worded from 1991 on, is that Saddam has to prove he has disarmed...he hasn't done so in the last 12 years. The US can be argued to have every right to just go in today. If the U.S goverment is holding out data, they do so to their own discredit.

They may also be keeping people alive, do you not care about that issue? Do you know anything about HUMINT? Should they reveal the names and addresses of sources while they are at it to save Saddam some trouble? Inquiring minds want to know, how many people supplyihng info should the president give up to satisfy your thirst for intimate details?

At any rate, thanks for the smile and wave Im trying to keep things light and airy and not heavy and nasty. Hope it is working [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Jay&SilentBob]

Originally posted by MagiK: Moiraine, Nobel laurates are acknowledged for their expertise in a specific filed. Seeking their thoughts about war and the dangers posed by Saddam is akin to asking Barbara Streisand for her opinion on how a war should be fought...or even IF it should be fought. Like it or not, the only people really qualified to make the decisions are those who have access to the highest levels of intelligence material....aka heads of state and the Military type advisors. Hollywood actors, and nuclear physicists have no more knowledge of the issue than your average man on the street....or at least thats how I see it. Edit: Just out of curiosity, where were these notables when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in norther Iraq? and why didn't they go to Iran as Human shields when The US was helping Iraq in its war against Iran (where chemical and bioagents were used by Iraq)? And where the Heck were all the hollywood stars when Clinton used cruise missiles to blow up an asprin factory? Sorry....just some things I was wondering but are really off topic I suppose.

Magik did you ever stop to think that these people would have asked themselves the same questions. Maybe it is because they think this time they are protesting against someone who might actually listen (something I doubt myself), as opposed to Saddam who would just gas them with the rest of the people. This time around they might actually make a difference, now the war is being perpetrated by a western nation it has much more international power both in opposers of the war and the wargoing countries themselves. You think saddam would give two shits who protested against him? NO. But the media and international pressure makes those supporters of the war listen to their counterparts this time around and people are taking advantage of that fact.

[Night Stalker]

Just for clarification to those that don't know:

HUMINT - Human Inteligence .... traditional "spy" stuff
SIGINT - Signals Intel
COMINT - Communications Intel
ELINT - Electronic Intel

Originally posted by Jay&SilentBob: Magik did you ever stop to think that these people would have asked themselves the same questions. Maybe it is because they think this time they are protesting against someone who might actually listen (something I doubt myself), as opposed to Saddam who would just gas them with the rest of the people. This time around they might actually make a difference, now the war is being perpetrated by a western nation it has much more international power both in opposers of the war and the wargoing countries themselves. You think saddam would give two shits who protested against him? NO. But the media and international pressure makes those supporters of the war listen to their counterparts this time around and people are taking advantage of that fact.

Hiho J&SB, have we talked before? If not, howdy [img]smile.gif[/img]

The discussion Moiraine and I were having is wether hollywood boobs, and/or the Nobel awardee's knew their behind from a hole in the ground when it comes to things that they are not expert in. Nobel prizes are given for significant achievments in a particular field, so that means they are experts recognized in that field, doesnt mean they are any more knowledgable about afairs of state, international Intelligence matters or WoMD programs run by dictator states.

It is fine to protest in a country where you are safe and secure and know that you won't be shot for voicing dissent, it is a whole different thing to defend a dictator while slandering and disparaging a leader of a western democratic nation. Unfortunatley that is what many of the protestors are doing. A lot of the protestors and posters here even ignore the facts and just say that they are all fiction, it is truely very sad.

[Yorick]

Magik I find you opinions on this bewildering to say the least.

Firstly, rather than accept that 40 Nobel laureates DO posses some wisdom and a voice that should be listened to, you discredit them ALL by saying that they have specialised fields of study.

Mate, every human has a field of specialisation. If they can't comment on what they see, how can anyone? How can you? Are you a professional politician?

Then, when a professional politician is named, you discredit the entire process by suggesting it was to slap Bush?

Well then, let's just throw out the whole thing shall we?

I suppose the Pope's nomination was to slap the Queen of England, the Ayatohlah or any other head of a religious body?

I mean, these are ridiculous sentiments MagiK. Have the guts to admit the wisdom of people with opposing views. Simply because the laureates disagree with your view does not negate their opiniion.