Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq

[patrickl]

"Back in 1995 the UN was asked to destroy these explosives. They didn't do so on the basis that they weren't part of a WMD program and therefore they weren't that important, and it was Hans Blix that ran the International Atomic Energy Agency at that point.

They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.

Besides, why did the IAEA put seals on them and why did they check those seals later? Yes, because they were important. These explosives can be used in a nuclear device. If someone is willing to steal these explosives right from under the noses of an army then they must have some intentions with them. So in fact the negligence of Bush to check up on these explosives made it more likely that a nuke will go off in NYC.

[DrewKaree]

They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.

Besides, why did the IAEA put seals on them and why did they check those seals later? Yes, because they were important.

and again, if they were so important, why were they not destroyed in 1995, instead of "putting a seal" on them?  

You continue to point to the negligence of Bush to act upon some report by the agency who didn't think them important enough to do anything about OTHER than "put seals on them".  

Explain how putting seals on something make them unusable.  If you can't show they were unusable, then they indeed WERE usable, and PUTTING A SEAL ON THEM is akin to telling a kid "don't touch that" after he's touched it 50 times already.  

Do you not get that people who would supposedly loot/steal this stuff WON'T be stopped by some lame seal (if, indeed that is what has happened.  I'm still waiting for the story that gives us proof, rather than speculation, that this is what happened - talk about reading biased reports )?  

If these items in question were dealt with in 1995, rather than left there to be stolen in 2003, this wouldn't even be an issue right now.  You claim biased reporting keeps me ignorant.  I claim that you not using your head as to basic facts on this story is planned ignorance.  

How do you dismiss the fact that the IAEA dealt/reported/sealed the stuff in 95?  

What could a governor of Texas POSSIBLY have to do with an international investigation in 1995 (and SUE me if my recollection of when Bush became governor is wrong, I'm not looking it up, because then it just becomes worse, that you're trying to blame this on a Major League Baseball team owner)

These weapons should have been dealt with in 1995.  No question about it.

You can't claim some crap theory that Bush should have known, listened to, interpreted, and acted upon information from an agency that thought these items to be so insignificant that they didn't remove them themselves.  It simply doesn't wash, and your ignorant bias is clouding your assessment of the situation.

Call me when the U.N. ISN'T involved in keeping weapons in Iraq, or having member countries work to ship in whatever Sadaam wanted.  

You want to blame Bush for everything while giving the U.N. a blanket pass on responsibility.  The "savior" you paint the U.N. as has served ONLY to further show WHY we should have gone in, and why the U.S. should not only ignore 'em, but to act contrary to whatever they decide.  It seems whatever is opposite seems to be the right thing to do.

You say terrorism is up, the reports on actions are up....tell me, do those reports you point to show WHAT hey are reporting, as it seems to me that including all the stuff going on in Iraq would indeed raise that number.  And it's an increase I'm perfectly happy accepting, as it's happening over THERE, instead of over HERE.  I can see the zeal coming if there is an attack in the next two days before our election (SEE, SEE!  WE TOLD YOU SO, WE TOLD YOU SO!)

[patrickl]

They are dual use explosives. Not completely illegal is something different than "not important". You really should read more unbiased sites Drew. If you only read distorted information then you will stay ignorant to the whole story.

Besides, why did the IAEA put seals on them and why did they check those seals later? Yes, because they were important.

and again, if they were so important, why were they not destroyed in 1995, instead of "putting a seal" on them?  

You continue to point to the negligence of Bush to act upon some report by the agency who didn't think them important enough to do anything about OTHER than "put seals on them".  

They weren't illegal if they were used for construction work so inspectors weren't allowed to destroy them as per the resolution.

Amazing how you can destort the truth to fit your own petty little world.

You say terrorism is up, the reports on actions are up....tell me, do those reports you point to show WHAT hey are reporting, as it seems to me that including all the stuff going on in Iraq would indeed raise that number.  And it's an increase I'm perfectly happy accepting, as it's happening over THERE, instead of over HERE.

That's just the lame truth yes. Make sure there is always a war and the terrorists will rather go there. Burn the earth and you will be safe yourself. All the good comes from America ho yeah. That sure is a pathetic way to look at things. Man can you sink any lower. You really deserve a retard like Bush. 4 more years of that fool and your country will be at war with everyone and completely broke. If a few terrorist attacking is enough to bring down the US what do you think will happen if you really piss enough people off?

[Crazy Cooter]

Drew is all worked up today

Think of dental floss.  You can use it to clean your teeth or you can use it as a garrot.  If a wacko needs some to clean his teeth, but has used it as a garrot before, you need to keep an eye on the dental floss supply.  So you monitor the medicine cabinet and only allow him to use enough to clean his teeth.  This is a dual use item.

Now suppose you leave because I come in.  I don't monitor the dental floss.  I don't even look to see where the dental floss is.  Patrick stops by and notices the dental floss is all gone.  Who is to blame?

a- You, because you let him keep dental floss around.
b- Me, because I didn't check on it.
c- Patrick, for some other reason.
d- The media.

[DrewKaree]

amazing how the "construction materials" wouldn't be able to be used by the "construction crews"  since they were sealed, and they remained sealed for 9 years.

Your dental floss comparison is idiotic.  If I monitored your use of dental floss, you'd still be allowed to use it, right?  Or didn't you think your comparison all the way through?  

These weapons were sealed, they weren't monitored to ensure their use was legit, and 9 years later, it suddenly becomes Bush's fault that the people in charge of the materials in the first place were so unconcerned by the possible deadly use of them that they "sealed them up"...probably with the same retarded dental floss Cooter wants to monitor.

Patrick, you think you're safer in your country sitting there being pacifists.  Who do you think they will turn against if they ever DO defeat the U.S.?  You think they're gonna sit there and twiddle their thumbs and contemplate how nice their world is now that we're out of it?  Your lollipops and rainbows view is fine, as long as America is there as a shield between you and the terrorists who hate anyone NOT muslim, and hate (but to a lesser degree) anyone else not muslim ENOUGH!

You're right, we DO deserve Bush, but unfortunately, the people of this country have a say, and their voice will be heard in ~3 days.  If enough people have been paying attention BEFORE the elections got into full swing and used their heads, we'll get what we deserve.  If enough people show up who couldn't have cared less and get all their voter information from TV and newspapers, we won't get what we deserve, we'll elect Kerry instead.

[patrickl]

Patrick, you think you're safer in your country sitting there being pacifists.  Who do you think they will turn against if they ever DO defeat the U.S.?  You think they're gonna sit there and twiddle their thumbs and contemplate how nice their world is now that we're out of it?  Your lollipops and rainbows view is fine, as long as America is there as a shield between you and the terrorists who hate anyone NOT muslim, and hate (but to a lesser degree) anyone else not muslim ENOUGH!

Are you missing the fact that in Europe the terrorist threat was actually decreasing (at least before Bush started his mess) and everywhere else it's increasing?

Seriously, not even you can believe terrorists are a threat to a country. By definition, terrorists are annoying, but not a threat to whole country. The only thing that is really is a grave danger is people overreacting to a terrorist threat.

You really have such a weird outlook on life that I wonder why you aren't in a nice padded room somewhere.

[Santoro]

Seriously, not even you can believe terrorists are a threat to a country. By definition, terrorists are annoying, but not a threat to whole country.

OMG this makes it official.  You have no grasp on reality.  If you think that 3000 dead with the potential of larger attacks is not a threat, you.....

well never mind.  I'll keep it gentlemanly.  

This is the reason I started the Sept 11 thread.  People are in complete and utter denial about what happened that day, and about what the US is up against.  Let me remind you.  The people below are preparing to jump rather than burn alive, right before the f-ing building collapsed.

{image removed out of courtesy because the reality of 911 being proven was too much for a certain board member to handle.}

May you never be forced to wake up from that dreamland you are in.  It was fun for me there pre-9/11 also.

[patrickl]

Seriously, not even you can believe terrorists are a threat to a country. By definition, terrorists are annoying, but not a threat to whole country.

OMG this makes it official.  You have no grasp on reality.  If you think that 3000 dead with the potential of larger attacks is not a threat, you.....

No, this is not a threat to a country as a whole. How can this attack make the terrorists "take care of the US"? It will of course kill people so the police should try to prevent it, but there is no way terrorists can take over a country. Their aim is to scare people. If you get scared they have won.

That's what I found disrespectful about the thread you started. These people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake. You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.

[TA Pilot]

No, this is not a threat to a country as a whole. Their aim is to scare people. If you get scared they have won.

Terrorists arent just trying to scare people... they have an agenda, and they further their agenda through fear.

Their agenda is a threat to the -free world- as a whole, to say nothing of the country.



You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.

Interesting observation.
Kerry makes the same claim.
Would he be instatutionalized as well?

[Santoro]

...people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.

The 9/11 attacks were in planning at the end of the Clinton era.  The 1993 WTC bombing was under Clinton's watch.  This isn't a 'people like Bush' phenomenon.

You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.

Well then, I sure am glad I am not 'over there.'   I will ignore your insult because I have already established you are not living in the real world.  I was there, I saw it, I lost friends.  It must never happen again.. ever.  The reason I brought it up was after seeing that so many people arguing in the threads here, it was being treated as a minor attack. Like a routine car bombing in Israel or Northern Ireland.  

9/11 was a hundered times bigger than any terrorist attack before it.  It was comparable to Pearl Harbor.  I will not let the deniers forget it.   I do this so that others never have to go through what the WTC occupants did.  I defy you to get a copy of the '911' documentary and tell me after watching it that 9/11 was not a threat to my country.  {edit:  They needn't 'take over' the country to destroy it.  2-3 dirty bombs in major cities could wipe out our economy.}

You can believe that I am 'abusing thier' deaths if you like.  While you are at it, please say 'hi' to Elvis for me..

Anyway, this is why I hate debating politics.  I am not having fun here, and all I am learning is that in general the world seems to care more about terrorist's rights than US security.  Yet we always send our troops and money when one of you all gets in trouble.  It is so very incredibly frustrating.

[Crazy Cooter]

"VIENNA (Reuters) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency is unlikely to drop plans for a new term despite U.S. anger after pre-election revelations of missing Iraq explosives, a diplomat close to the agency said on Saturday.

A senior U.S. official said on Friday the Bush administration would seek to unseat International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei if Bush is re-elected president. ...
If Bush wins re-election next Tuesday, the plan is "to move from urging him to (leave the IAEA) to active opposition" to his reappointment, the senior U.S. official told Reuters."
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6666162&src=rss/topNews&section=news
Yeah, Bush is on the up-n-up.  What a bitter, spiteful man.  Yet another instance where Bush wants to burn someone because they aren't doing as he would like.

Drew, this stuff was sealed up because we were afraid of it being used to detonate a Nuke.  The material itself wasn't necessarily "banned".  The "retarded dental floss" worked (except on one occasion, but the material was returned).

Santoro, I think what Patrick is saying is that it is a threat, but it shouldn't be a threat to the ways of our Nation (Correct me if I'm wrong).  That's what I've been trying to say.  Consider that in 2001, there were 848 more deaths and 1134 fewer wounded than in 2000.  These are worldwide numbers.  That's why I say that 9/11 opened the eyes of people that didn't see terrorism before.  If anyone was dreaming, it was America.  Most Americans were unaware of what was going on around them.  The rest of the world has been seeing this stuff for a long time.  Now I hear people say we are fighting the war "there" instead of "here".  It doesn't make sense.  It's not really a choice that can be made.  We can break up some groups and disrupt them, but attacks will continue to happen all around the world from other groups and eventually something will happen here again.  It probably won't be Bin Laden's nutjobs, but it will happen.  There are countries that US citizens should not even step foot in.  Read the travel advisories: http://travel.state.gov/travel/warnings.html  Like I said, this stuff has been happening for a long time.  Adopting a NIMBY attitude won't help.  Terrorism is global problem and needs a global effort to minimize it.  We just don't have the resources where we can say at any point "the war is over".  We need to bring in more help.

[DrewKaree]

These people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.

before we were attacked on 9/11, Bush had done nothing.  Go ahead, ask any liberal in America.  We couldn't hear ENOUGH of how much Bush WASN'T doing, and now YOU want to blame Bush's actions, which were nonexistent towards terrorists, for the deaths there.  

As Santoro stated, they tried to blow up the WTC during Clinton's watch.  What was he doing to piss them off?

Again, your grasp of time is simply staggering.  Things happen years ago, and the only reason you seem to find fault with what's happening now is some mythical "Bush brought it on America" theory.  

You stating it's Bush's fault doesn't change the fact that things might be happening now that could have been prevented years ago by the very people who are now clamoring about how Bush screwed up.  

The U.N. has shown obvious corruption in its plans to "help" the Iraqi people, whether you want to admit it or not.  That's not being debated, as everyone accepts it.  Where you veer off the road is the ability to connect the dots, see that one corruption isn't simply an isolated incident.  We supposedly find out about how "weapons" are stolen (who did it, when was it done, how much, and why?) which should have been destroyed, or at the very least (I'll put this in slo-mo format so even you can understand it) should have been R-E-M-O-V-E-D by this corrupt organization.  They've found someone to conveniently pin it on, and you're a willing accomplice.  

You again seek to find justification for why the U.N. and it's investigations were legit, but can't seem to figure out how anyone with half a brain can think that these items may not have ever been there in the first place, but if they were, the IAEA was the body responsible for securing them, was the body responsible for them still being in that location, and used such minimal security precautions that it can ONLY be thought that they felt these materials to be INSIGNIFICANT.

That you would think otherwise is to know you only wish to have Bush removed, and for no other reason than you just don't like him.

You can say what you wish about Bush, but we've been attacked several times, from Clinton's watch through Bush's.  The people attacking us hate our way of life, and hate the fact that we are not religiously pure, as they believe themselves to be.  You believe all that you want about us crapping on their fire rings, its a religious war to them, plain and simple.  Continuing to close your eyes to it doesn't make it less true, it just keeps you ignorant and willing to blame anyone other than the people who bear the responsibility for the consequences - the terrorists, and all who would provide aid, comfort, and safe harbor for them.

[DrewKaree]

What a bitter, spiteful man.  Yet another instance where Bush wants to burn someone because they aren't doing as he would like.

We see collossal failure on the IAEA's part when first discovering these items, and you think it spiteful to want the head of the organization out.  Kinda makes me wonder, if you'd give THAT guy a pass, why don't you also wish to give Bush the same pass.  Same thing by your reasoning - they let the "weapons get looted/stolen and into the hands of terrorists".  What's your reasoning on one, but not the other?  Oh, that's right, Bush is ugly, stupid, and talks funny.

Drew, this stuff was sealed up because we were afraid of it being used to detonate a Nuke.  The material itself wasn't necessarily "banned".  The "retarded dental floss" worked (except on one occasion, but the material was returned).

Now you're trying to paint this stuff as being "sealed up".  The seals were at best a preventative to using the materials which seem to be easily defeated with wire cutters.  They weren't cemented into the bunkers.  If they could be easily looted/stolen, then they weren't SUFFICIENTLY "sealed up" enough to prevent their theft and possible use.  If you are claiming that they were sealed up to prevent use with Nukes, then you've got nothing to worry about, right?  There WERE NO NUKES over there, as you're wont to tell us, and since the "sealing" was so stellar as to prevent their use in detonating a nuke, we're still safe.

The "seal" was a deterrent, like a latch on a gate.  You're now trying to paint it as if these items had a latch on the gate, the latch was locked, and the latch was sealed in concrete.  These weapons didn't need to be "sealed up".  They needed to be removed or destroyed when they were found.  Period.  You're making excuses and allowances for a corrupt organization (the U.N.) and attempting to pin it on a man who shouldn't have even needed to deal with them, but for the failure of the U.N.  Where's your outcry of indignation against the U.N. ?  Instead of asking why Bush didn't do anything about them, perhaps you should be wondering why the U.N. and its investigations are turning up things we were looking for, but weren't securing.  

Like I said, this stuff has been happening for a long time.  Adopting a NIMBY attitude won't help.  Terrorism is global problem and needs a global effort to minimize it.  We just don't have the resources where we can say at any point "the war is over".  We need to bring in more help.

A global effort like Russia and Syria were working on, selling weapons to Sadaam?  A global effort like France, working to keep Sadaam in power to aid their country, pump up its economy by getting oil on the cheap and screwing its own people by aiding a psychotic dictator?  

I agree, this stuff has been happening for a long time.  Adopting a Not In My Back Yard attitude is EXACTLY what would help, as adopting a "we can't stop it, we can only hope to contain it" attitude will only serve to have the problem dissolve in our minds and start to question why we are fighting terrorism in the first place, as we are right now, and have people concern themselves with what's wrong with the U.S., rather than what the U.S. is doing RIGHT in the world.  

We have weekly reports about how the U.S. is screwing up, no matter who the President, and have little to NO reports about what exactly the U.S. does in the world to help other nations.  If the U.S. is such a widely hated country, then really, shouldn't we start to use the aid we hand out to solve the ills of our own country?  It certainly doesn't seem to matter to the patrickL's or Dexter's or rcchadd's of the world HOW much we do for other countrys.  As long as we've got someone doing a few things they don't agree with, they're willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Terrorism will be a threat to the U.S. as a country.  Having a part of the U.S. hit affects the rest of our country due to the way we are set up.  To have it not affect the "ways of our Nation" would show a callousness the terrorists might agree with.  To have it not affect the "ways of our Nation" would open up any President to accusations of not caring about the security of our country.  If 9/11 had not affected the "ways of our Nation", you'd be clamoring about how Bush didn't care enough about the security of our country, as we'd have surely been hit by terrorists again by this time.

[DrewKaree]

P.S: how did you know i was a sparky?  

your _browneyelashes gave you away.....long, flowing, but just a bit too much "color"  

The identifying marks of a "sparky"  

[patrickl]

...people died because of the actions people like Bush undertake.

The 9/11 attacks were in planning at the end of the Clinton era.  The 1993 WTC bombing was under Clinton's watch.  This isn't a 'people like Bush' phenomenon.

Clinton or Bush might perhaps have prevented the attacks on the WTC, but they are not the REASON for those attacks. The reasons for the attacks were actions taken long before they started. Aggressive actions are the cause of terrorism. Bush junior has set in motion a whole new session of terrorist attacks. You can count on that (even more so than the current surge of attacks in Iraq).

You now try to abuse their death to scare people into voting for Bush because apparently he can instill a blind belief in people that he can actually take care of terrorism. Over here he would be institutionalized for claims like that.

Well then, I sure am glad I am not 'over there.'   I will ignore your insult because I have already established you are not living in the real world.

Sorry, you are the one detached from the "world". You seem to belief "the whole world" believed there were WMD in Iraq and that Iraq has something to do with terrorism. I guess you even still do. I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.

{edit:  They needn't 'take over' the country to destroy it.  2-3 dirty bombs in major cities could wipe out our economy.}

Again, you just blindly lap up the scare tactics of the Bush administration. Remember the Sarin attacks in Tokyo? This is supposed to be one of the most lethal WMD that Saddam was supposed to have. The scare mongers claim it can kill hundreds of thousands of people in an attack. You know how many people died in those attacks in Tokyo? 12!

Anyway, this is why I hate debating politics.  I am not having fun here, and all I am learning is that in general the world seems to care more about terrorist's rights than US security.  Yet we always send our troops and money when one of you all gets in trouble.  It is so very incredibly frustrating.

No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken. You will probably only notice this in a couple of years, but by then it's too late.

I have to say I'm not enjoying this very much anymore either. A very bad sentiment is showing. "You people" are really starting to scare me. You are going completely insane. How many more countries need to be "brought to their knees" before you will feel safe? Who was in trouble that needed Iraq to be invaded? The US only fights for it's own interests. Don't blame this Iraq mess on us. We didn't ask for that crap.

[danny_galaga]

P.S: how did you know i was a sparky?  

your _browneyelashes gave you away.....long, flowing, but just a bit too much "color"  

The identifying marks of a "sparky"  

damn you're good   . of course a bigger clue would be the crazy afro i sport from being electrocuted so many times...

[Dexter]

This is the reason I started the Sept 11 thread.  People are in complete and utter denial about what happened that day, and about what the US is up against.  

People are also in denial about why it happened. OBLs reasons for attacking America have nothing to do with hating your freedom. They were to protest and draw attention to American interference in the middle-east. The loss of life on 9/11 was terrible, but to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis in the name of the victims as bush does is sickening. The guy has so much power, hopefully if he manages to get elected this time he'll have the decency to call this thing an evangelical crusade against the muslim world, and at least earn some brownie points for being honest.

[TA Pilot]

I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.

One must then wonder:
Why did UNSCR 1441 pass 15-0?

French, German and Russian intel all supported the intel we and the UK had.  No one questioned the existence of the WMDs - the only question was what to do about them, and THAT question only came up once it became clear Bush was willing to go into Iraq to solve the problem.



No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken.

Interesting.
Does this make Kerry "sadly mistaken"?
And how else to you propose we "deal" with terrorists?

[patrickl]

I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.

One must then wonder:
Why did UNSCR 1441 pass 15-0?

That one only said that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and didn't give a full report on how the WMD were destroyed. It does not say there were WMD in Iraq, just that there was no proof they weren't there. Don't try to pull that nonsens on us again.

Besides, I was talking about the resolution the US tried to get for invading Iraq. That was later and by that time it was already clear that the US had no reliable intel on where theWMD were. Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US. After that it was perfectly clear that there were most likely no WMD, or at least that the US had NO intel on where the WMD were even.

No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken.

Interesting.
Does this make Kerry "sadly mistaken"?
And how else to you propose we "deal" with terrorists?

I already explained how to deal with terrorists, or at least how to try to.

[TA Pilot]

That one only said that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and didn't give a full report on how the WMD were destroyed. It does not say there were WMD in Iraq, just that there was no proof they weren't there. Don't try to pull that nonsens on us again.

UNSCR 1441 labels Iraq a threat:
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

And then, there's David Kay:

"KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here...

...I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing."

So:
French, German and Russian intel all supported the intel we and the UK had.  No one questioned the existence of the WMDs - the only question was what to do about them, and THAT question only came up once it became clear Bush was willing to go into Iraq to solve the problem.




Besides, I was talking about the resolution the US tried to get for invading Iraq.

You mean the one they could not get, it now seems, because of French/German/Iraq/UN corruption?



Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US. After that it was perfectly clear that there were most likely no WMD, or at least that the US had NO intel on where the WMD were even.

And then he said that "Iraq has not made the fundamental decision to disarm".   If thats the case, then how could Iraq have disarmed?

[DrewKaree]

No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism.

It'd be nice to have someone other than left-bent people from the rest of the world to tell us about terrorism, as I'm positive some from your part of the world with a right-bent to them would obviously tell us differently, if not wholeheartedly believe as we do, if not more so.

Has there been someone from outside the U.S. here with conservative views posting and I missed them?

Oh, and I've seen some of the ways foreigners deal with terrorism.  They fight back.  At least the ones who know it's the best way to deal with terrorism.....most of the ones who believe it's best to reason with them either give up everything in the hope for peace, only to have a request for more taken from them, or they get killed.  

[fredster]

Why is that people seem to forget that Congress declares war and gives the president the power?

You know, there are 435 people in the House and 100 in the Senate that had to vote?

There were what, 3 that voted against it and the rest for it?

Included were Kerry and Edwards?

Come on folks, the president had the backing of the congress and a vast majority of the people in the US.

Screw what France thinks.  

[DrewKaree]

That was later and by that time it was already clear that the US had no reliable intel on where theWMD were. Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US.

the reliable intel Mr Blix and his organization was giving us regarding the "explosives" they sealed up and dealt with?  Yeah, we gave him solid tips.  From the same intel you seem to think consisted singularly of the CIA, and are unwilling to even consider that of the other countries having the same intel, offering the same position on Sadaam....yet you contiue to insist it's the U.S. and the CIA that gave the intel leading us to decide for war.  

It's probably a good thing we DIDN'T give Mr Blix anything he could find.  After putting a "seal" on it, it would have been left alone for 9 years while they tried to figure out if it was being used for weapons or little Iraqi girls' Easy Bake Ovens.

We get your point.  U.S. = bad  patrick no more want info to make him think....head hurt....need aspirin.....have to lie (down) when making point.  ugum.

Those of us in America are debating in order to make a point about the candidate we support.  You, on the other hand, profess both candidates to be "right wing nutters", which would lead me to believe that you think neither would be fit for President of the U.S. of A.

If that's the case, get an Ohio ballot, and write in Nerf Hoffelmeyer.  Don't worry, even if you're not a citizen, it's like Chicago during the Daly years - you can vote until you die, then, you can vote twice!

[patrickl]

Sad warmongers.

[TA Pilot]

Sad warmongers.

News:
War is sometimes necessary.
This is one of those times.
You dont have to -like- reality, but you should accept it.

[patrickl]

Sad warmongers.

News:
War is sometimes necessary.
This is one of those times.
You dont have to -like- reality, but you should accept it.

You sound just like someone else. Here's a quote:

Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leader. This is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Just up your alley isn't it?

[TA Pilot]

Hmmm.

Goering also ate bread and breathed air.

Does that mean there's something wrong with those things, too?

Must be.  You better cut it out with the breathing, or people will start looking for swastikas in your closet.

[patrickl]

Hmmm.

Goering also ate bread and breathed air.

Does that mean there's something wrong with those things, too?

Must be.  You better cut it out with the breathing, or people will start looking for swastikas in your closet.

Well it's just that I hear the same rethoric from Bush and his fanatical supporters

[mr.Curmudgeon]

War is sometimes necessary.

I just wish Bush would have picked the correct country. Or at least actually got Osama.
You know....it's the little things.

-mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

{image removed out of courtesy because the reality of 911 being proven was too much for a certain board member to handle.}

You're moral superiority is sickening. Get back to me when you can walk on water.

I've seen the videos of human bodies punching through the glass atrium after an 80-story fall. I've seen unreleased photos of body parts strewn across the ashen ground...does that make me qualified enough to understand the true horror of 9/11?

What was too much for me to handle was your crass manipulation of the tragedy for selfish political gain. That'd make you no better than the terrorists...as they seek to manipulate people through fear and emotional turmoil. Think about it and ask yourself what you think you can possibly accomplish by sinking to their level.

[Santoro]

MrC.  I respect your position no matter how much I disagree with it.  I am sorry you chose to go into the mud with it.

You won in a way, because I am done responding to patently false allegations.

May the best candidate win.

[DrewKaree]

You're moral superiority is sickening. Get back to me when you can walk on water.

I've seen the videos of human bodies punching through the glass atrium after an 80-story fall. I've seen unreleased photos of body parts strewn across the ashen ground...does that make me qualified enough to understand the true horror of 9/11?

why'd they release the photos to you?  

What was too much for me to handle was your crass manipulation of the tragedy for selfish political gain. That'd make you no better than the terrorists...as they seek to manipulate people through fear and emotional turmoil. Think about it and ask yourself what you think you can possibly accomplish by sinking to their level.

said the man working to show tragedy in Iraq as being directly and completely Bush's fault - each and every death as if Bush had killed them with his bare hands.  

Talk about walking on water

It must be nice to be as compassionate, fair-minded, and open to new ideas as you are....unless it's a conservative opening his mouth.

To call for a deletion of a thread and then act in a fashion to ensure if it isn't, your own words will accomplish that which you view to be right....were you born that sanctimonious, or are you REALLY that much better than us?

[Santoro]

What is really interesting is that he blew up and used the foul language in the Sept 11 Experiences thread that he wanted to see deleted, rather than the thread with the photo that he 'objected' to.

Clearly a transparent ruse by a Kerry Campaign worker to get the September 11 thread removed.

Well done.  

[Dexter]

What is really interesting is that he blew up and used the foul language in the Sept 11 Experiences thread that he wanted to see deleted, rather than the thread with the photo that he 'objected' to.

Well done.  

Yeah, that was a good thread too. Cheers  

[saint]

Back.
http://www.arcadecontrols.org/yabbse/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=26627

[mr.Curmudgeon]

why'd they release the photos to you?

I have two photographer friends in New York, both work for a large magazine (which will remain unnamed/conspiracy theories be damned). I was shown the photos, privately, by them. The magazine will not release these photos as they have been deemed too grotesque. My point being, I don't need to have a poster of WTC jumpers hanging over my bed in order to get my rocks off remembering 9/11. I will never forget. Those in support of the War, and Bush in general (and Santoro specifically), seem to think that just by the mere act of disagreeing with you (ie: Bush SUX! Iraq=No WMD), a person somehow "forgets" about 9/11. How stupid is that?

I'm all for splattering the terrorists all over the sand. But, the latest OBL tape shows how much of a failure Bush really is, so he needs to go. It has NOTHING to do with lack of remembering the horrors of 9/11. In fact, it's exactly WHY BUSH NEEDS TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS FAILURES.

said the man working to show tragedy in Iraq as being directly and completely Bush's fault - each and every death as if Bush had killed them with his bare hands.

 

Riight. Nice extrapolation though. If I've argued for Bush to held responsible, I've done it with researched arguments based on inductive reasoning, not appeals to pity and prejudicial language (Santoro's post includes two of the main logical fallicies of Motive). Have I ever posted pictures of bloodied, wounded, or dying soldiers? Have I ever posted pictures of massacred Iraqi children? Burned/charred civilians? They exist, as much as you'd like to ignore them.

Didn't think so. You have no point.

To call for a deletion of a thread and then act in a fashion to ensure if it isn't, your own words will accomplish that which you view to be right....were you born that sanctimonious, or are you REALLY that much better than us?

Santoro wanted strong words...he got them. Don't play the fool. He only cares about peoples 9/11 remembrances insofar as they can be used to paint Bush as some type of avenging angel/war hero.

To answer your final question, given the fact that I don't feel the need to sink to emotional blackmail and debased pandering...yeah, I am really that much better than those who would, and those who'd support them (You/Santoro). Glad we could finally clear that up.

The thread is back anways you big whiners.

mrC

[saint]

Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules

To answer your final question, given the fact that I don't feel the need to sink to emotional blackmail and debased pandering...yeah, I am really that much better than those who would, and those who'd support them (You/Santoro). Glad we could finally clear that up.

The thread is back anways you big whiners.

mrC

[GGKoul]

Message board rules:
Rules?  We don't need no steeenkin rules!  Well, maybe one.  Be nice to each other.  We're serious about this one.  Disagree, debate, argue at will - but please be respectful.  Messages that are antagonistic or contain profanity will likely be deleted, and repeat offenders banned from posting.  Oh, also - I do not mind the occasional emulation related or other off-topic post.  This is an online community as well as a discussion forum after all.  However, please do bear in mind the intent of the board is to discuss arcade controls and related topics.

NO ROM REQUESTS

Thanks!

--- saint

[DrewKaree]

Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules Rules

To answer your final question, given the fact that I don't feel the need to sink to emotional blackmail and debased pandering...yeah, I am really that much better than those who would, and those who'd support them (You/Santoro). Glad we could finally clear that up.

The thread is back anways you big whiners.

mrC

I would consider my post antagonistic in nature.  My bad, and I am considering myself warned.  

MrC, we can make up after today.    

Even if Kerry wins.  

If Bush wins, naturally I'd be extra nice to you, kinda like killing you with insincere kindness, but either way, your passion is encouraging - people care! - although you encourage far more riff-raff than I care to hear from

[DrewKaree]

Hey Saint, I was listening to Lewis Black today....do you happen to be a fan of his work?  You strike me as exactly how he was portraying himself.....can't remember the CD, but it was the one where he is in Minnesota.