The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: DrewKaree on October 06, 2004, 11:01:37 pm
-
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777)
Even the evidence that comes out daily flip flops!
So tomorrow, we'll hear from more "experts" who aren't biased ::) about how the U.S. will never find WMD's, because they just don't exist in Iraq....well, after 1998, that is ::)
Why don't we have "weather balloon filling trailers" like this story says?
-
Christ, Drew. I agree. The weapons are there. They just have to be. It's that simple. That's all there is to it. Evidence be damned. They're there. My gut tells me so and so it is. Yee Haw!!!!
-
Where are the WMDs that UNSCOM said were there in 1998?
If there were no WMDs or WMD programs, then what did Clinton bomb the crap out of in december 1998?
If there are no WMDs or WMD programs, does this mean Kerry lied?
-
Where are the WMDs that UNSCOM said were there in 1998?
Ehm, is it perhaps possible that they (or actually you) were wrong in 1998? Besides they (as a whole) never said there were WMD, but only some of them said they assumed there might be some WMD left. In fact there were also inspecters who said they assumed there were no WMD left.
Maybe you can remember they were kicked out back then because the CIA had basically taken over the whole operation and was more like spying on Iraq and unfortunately they were exposed. These people HAD to say there were WMD since otherwise they could spy no further.
-
Here's the reasons for Iraq as I see 'em. It's a kinda broad vision, so I understand why it's hard for some people to comprehend.
It's very simple in concept, difficult to achieve in the real world- Stop terrorists from having the organized ability to strike at the US. AKA the "war on terror"
State sponsored terrorism is where the Government of the country allows the formation of active militia to train within their borders. The State sanctions the import / export of weaposn and provides a safe haven for these people to live and train without interference.
Bush's policy is to distrupt this type of government sanction and individual group activity. If the government shields the terrorists, then the govenment is a terrorist.
First Bush looked at the organization that enabled the 9/11 terrorists to achieve their goals. He found and killed most of the leaders, the other leaders are harder to find. He has actively been seeking these terrorists all through the middle east and in some areas of Africa. Further, the dictators that had the ablity to constitute weapons and with a history of terrorist acts (ie: Lybia, Iraq, Syria, and Iran) were put on notice that we would take action.
Used to empty threats and rethoric from democratic Presidents, most disregarded Bush's warnings.
So, faced with information that indicated Saddam still had weapons and Iraq could now be a safe haven for the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Queada, coupled with the long brutal history of the regieme, Bush made a call. He brought his case to the UN and to the US congress. Congress had access to the same information sources both public information and other clandistine information that still isn't released. The evidence from the CIA and outside sources like Russia and the UK painted a picture of a country with even more capablity to provide WMD to the terrorists and strike a blow to the US and score points with the Middle East's Isamic Fundamentalists.
Congress approved the measure, overwhelmingly. Including those who say now it was a "diversion".
The UN Security councel didn't get a chance to vote, and principal members indicated a sure veto. So Bush had a decision to make. Either sit back and wait for the threat to develop fully or take decisive action.
Bush took the historic move, and politically risky and bold move, to take out a manical dictator.
After this war, Lybia gave up the weapons and weapon programs they had. The Middle eastern countries are falling under a magnifying glass to see what other spiders are hiding in the sands there.
If we are fully successfull with Iraq, we can transform the heart of the Middle east back to a peaceful and productive member of the world community. Afgahnistan and Iraq will join with Turkey and Pakistan as a functioning center of culture and hopefully a powerful example of democracy and wealth.
Being fully successfull will create new allies where we need them most, where the fundamentalists live and train. The new culture can then remove the fundamentalist schools and a generation of Arabs can be raised in a country that promotes free exchange of ideas instead of suppression by either tyranical rule or fundamentalist dark age tactics and hate.
If successfull, the US will have transformed the Middle East like we have Europe and the communist block.
-
I thought the question here was for WMDs "to be or not to be" in Iraq, but if you want to talk terorism, just remember terrorism comes from angry poor people and wars create angry poor people. Besides, the US will not be sucessful in the way you envision. So far the violence only seems to increase. It might perhaps have been sucesful if it would have been a truly alliedventure, but now the US has shown itself to be the bad guys again in the eyes of the middle eastern population (and to be honest probably all over the world outside of the US).
The only way to solve the problems in the middle east is to solve the Israeli conflict. Or perhaps to nuke the whole area into a "huge parkinglot" as american soldiers like to say.
-
Ehm, is it perhaps possible that they (or actually you) were wrong in 1998? Besides they (as a whole) never said there were WMD, but only some of them said they assumed there might be some WMD left. In fact there were also inspecters who said they assumed there were no WMD left.
Incorrect.
UNSCOM had a list of known WMDs that had not yet been destoryed. An actual inventory. Not just a list of "unaccounted for" items, but a list of shells, cannisters, bombs, etc.
-
Or perhaps to nuke the whole area into a "huge parkinglot" as american soldiers like to say.
The term is "Glass Factory".
-
That would explain jailing Manuel.
That also means that Red Foreman from "That 70's Show" is a terrorist, since he's always threatening to put his foot in Eric's ass....he's looking for a place to plant a bomb!
-
So far, everyone seems willing to pin the blame for going to war in Iraq on Bush, as if he put on his cowboy hat, hitched up his chaps, and said "Let's mosey on in there boys and kick some @$$". It's not conceivable that he did what Democrats asked, went to the U.N. and begged them, yet again, to do something about Sadaam Hussein.
Why on EARTH would Bush want to do ANYTHING about Sadaam Hussein, since he posed no threat, since the War on Terror was specifically about Afghanistan, and since everyone "knew" that he didn't possess WMD's?
Maybe he was listening to the people who, at the time, weren't wringing their hands like they are now. Maybe he was listening to the people who wanted to talk and sound tough towards the War on Terror. Maybe he was foolish to listen to those people, but you'd have to disagree with what was said by his opponents, both prior to his administration AND during his administration.
The "I've always had one position" seems a bit trite after looking through the glasses of hindsight that Bush's opponents want to see him through, but always fail to acknowledge he wasn't alone in his opinion.
Let's take a looksee at what they had to say....sources are given, if you wish....and if you need more, don't worry, read all you want, I'll get more!
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html)
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source (http://web.archive.org/web/20040206224935/johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html)
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/)
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/)
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/)
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm)
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/)
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm)
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm)
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source (http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/4136328.htm?1c)
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html)
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html)
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source (http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/10/2002A07621.html)
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm)
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source (http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html)
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source (http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html)
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source (http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/article.php/12285)
-
Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?
I never seem to get an answer to this question.
-
Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?
I never seem to get an answer to this question.
While I don't have an answer, only a guess, and I agree with your point, this probably will be pooh-poohed by the intellegensia here.
I believe two things happened to those weapons
1) They were hidden, and the people who knew their whereabouts were killed in combat
2) They were moved to a country friendly to Iraq, to be held until we moved out again, as Sadaam probably expected us to do like the last time.
I believe a combination of BOTH things happened, because Sadaam would need a few weapons to threaten the country holding his weapons, should they not want to give 'em back.
Anyone else care to give TA their opinion. or do you perhaps think he's setting you up? ;)
-
Anyone else care to give TA their opinion. or do you perhaps think he's setting you up?
In case you're wondering, here's the disposition of Iraq Chem weapons, according to UNSCOM, JAN 1999:
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/990125/dis-chem.htm
Example:
-155-mm artillery shells (mustard): 13,000
-12,792 shells were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision in the period 1992-1994.
Where are the remaining ~200 mustard gas rounds?
(Mustard gas doesnt degrade, kids....)
-122-mm rockets (sarin): 6,610
-6,454 rockets were accounted for by UNSCOM. They were destroyed by Iraq under UNSCOM supervision during 1992 and 1993.
Where are the remaining ~150 rocket warheads?
(While Sarin degrades, its precursors dont. 122mm CW rocket warheads are binary rounds, where the precursor chemicals are mixed to form sarin upon detonation)
The remaining quantities are small... but the questions are still valid.
Where are they?
-
Oh, and then there's the report that just came out...check it out here, but beware, you'll have to register with the N.Y. Times! (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/08/politics/08sanctions.html?oref=login) (Don't worry, TA, it's worthwhile)
And why couldn't we find out about this earlier, like when the Clinton administration was working on resolution 5 million ::) Is THIS the information Bush was supposed to use when deciding to go to war? (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/7/223917.shtml)
Oh, and that silly little link between Al Qaeda and Iraq...I'm wondering if this article will come up in the debates this week (http://www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayArticle.cfm?ID=9762)
-
Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?
I never seem to get an answer to this question.
I already answered that one. They did KNOW the assumed there MIGHT be some. Most inspectors actually reported they didn't think there were any. Only the CIA appointed guy said there were some
-
I already answered that one. They did KNOW the assumed there MIGHT be some.
Thats odd, because the source I posted specifies weapons that were KNOWN to still exist seperate from the weapons that they could not account for.
Where are they?
Where are the remaining ~200 mustard gas rounds?
Where are the remaining ~150 sarin rocket warheads?
-
Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?
I never seem to get an answer to this question.
While I don't have an answer, only a guess, and I agree with your point, this probably will be pooh-poohed by the intellegensia here.
I believe two things happened to those weapons
1) They were hidden, and the people who knew their whereabouts were killed in combat
2) They were moved to a country friendly to Iraq, to be held until we moved out again, as Sadaam probably expected us to do like the last time.
I believe a combination of BOTH things happened, because Sadaam would need a few weapons to threaten the country holding his weapons, should they not want to give 'em back.
Anyone else care to give TA their opinion. or do you perhaps think he's setting you up? ;)
Lol, I find this theory about as plausible as the theory that the moon landings were faked!
The trouble with these convoluted conspiracy theories is that so many people have to be in on the game.
The Americans have captured Saddam and most of his henchmen, and have had over a year to interrogate/bribe them. Yet NOT ONE of them have spilt the beans.
Also, no one from this mysterious 'friendly' country has spilt the beans either.
Don't you think this is odd? Oh sorry I forgot they all died in combat.
-
The Americans have captured Saddam and most of his henchmen, and have had over a year to interrogate/bribe them. Yet NOT ONE of them have spilt the beans.
So what, and how do you know? Just because it isn't on the evening news doesn't mean we don't know more information.
Fallen dictatorships don't often have people revealing all of their secrets after they have been defeated. Saddam is still calling for his people to save him too.
Don't go thinking so 9/10 man. When you live in an age of terrorism with increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, it is the absence of fear that is utterly irrational.
-
The Americans have captured Saddam and most of his henchmen, and have had over a year to interrogate/bribe them. Yet NOT ONE of them have spilt the beans.
So what, and how do you know? Just because it isn't on the evening news doesn't mean we don't know more information.
Fallen dictatorships don't often have people revealing all of their secrets after they have been defeated. Saddam is still calling for his people to save him too.
Don't go thinking so 9/10 man. When you live in an age of terrorism with increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, it is the absence of fear that is utterly irrational.
We're now living in the "Age of Terrorism". Ooooooooohhhhhhh! Scary. Maybe that can be a sequel to Age of Empires.
Fredster, comments like that shed a little bit of light on why non-Americans have a tendency to find Americans obnoxious. Perhaps before you start talking about 9/11 ushering in a new paradigm you should take a look at the rest of the world over the past 50 years. Maybe you should give israel a call and ask them what life is like post-9/11, now that they're living in the age of terrorism.
You make no sense to me Fredster. Your support for the Patriot Act. Your support for cops randomly taking your friend into custody for supposedly being "out of place". Where does all this trust come from for your government? Why is it that someone with so much trust for his government is so intent on owning weapons in case he needs to overthrow it?
-
I already answered that one. They did KNOW the assumed there MIGHT be some.
Thats odd, because the source I posted specifies weapons that were KNOWN to still exist seperate from the weapons that they could not account for.
Where are they?
Where are the remaining ~200 mustard gas rounds?
Where are the remaining ~150 sarin rocket warheads?
The report is simply wrong. It's not hard evidence, but a good guess of how many might be around.
For instance:
122-mm rockets, quantity 6,880 and 7,305 accounted for. ::)
This is also more like a case of guilty until proven innocent:
Iraqi - "We don't have any more WMD"
Inspector - "OK then show me the receipt of the destruction company"
Iraqi - "Ehm... say what?"
Inspector - "OK so they stay on the list"
Iraqi - "Whatever"
-
Where are the weapons UNSCOM knew to be in Iraq in December 1998?
Next to my socks that keep disappearing from the dryer. ;)
In all seriousness, if (and that's a big if for me) there are/were chemical weapons in Iraq, we're not going to find them. It's like asking where all the Nukes are in the US. Buried mostly, probably no one person even knows. Maybe sold by some nutjob general from Saddams army after he was captured.
I don't think Saddam himself ever would or did sell anything to a terrorist group though and here's why:
1- He had enough scratch. Second largest oil reserves in the world. Gold crappers...
2- Nobody liked him. Pure and simple. He was the dork of the playground and his only way to survive was through fear & intimidation. Had he sold something like that to a terrorist group, they could have used it against him. He had some pretty pimp cribs you know. If I was some nutjob with a small crowd of equally nuts... nutjobs following me around, I'd be all over that stuff. Take out Saddam. Rule with an iron fist. Live large. It just wouldn't make sense to sell your enemy something like that. What could someone give him that would warrant the risk?
Now that Saddam no longer rules the land, you've got insurgents taking it to the streets. I would think if they had something they would use it now. Unless they start hiding out and become terrorists...
-
It's like asking where all the Nukes are in the US. Buried mostly, probably no one person even knows.
FYI concerning the US nukes: (not intended as a flame, just info for anyone interested)
I can only speak for the Air Force, but I assume similar policies also apply to other services.
Every single round of ammunition is accounted for. Every bullet fired on the firing range, every blank round used at a funeral, every dummy round issued for training. There is a paper trail, and someone is held accountable every step along the way. This is done to ensure nobody steals them or uses them for any unauthorized purpose.
Nukes are treated with much more care and scrutiny. Believe me, the commander of a bomber wing knows EXACTLY where all his nuclear bombs and missiles are at every single moment. His supervisors know it, too.
All nuclear warheads are LOANED to the armed forces from the Department of Energy. The DOE conducts regular inspections to ensure that the nukes are handled properly, stored properly, and documented properly. If they find any gross errors they have the authority to take them all back.
There are many people who know exactly where all our nukes are. Probably the KGB (when the USSR existed) knew all this, too. The big deterrent with nukes has always been retaliation. We know they can't knock out all of them at once, so where they are located isn't such a big deal.
-
Danny,
The stakes are higher now than in the past. There has been local terrorists through history for sure. But these people are taking huge risks. In Russia two planes down, a school with 300+ dead. 3000 dead in the streets of New York and Washington DC. In your area of the world 100's killed in bombings.
Not to mention Israel. 1000's have died. Car Bombs in Saudi Arabia and Africa.
It's not going to go away unless the root of the problem is removed. The reasons for the terrorism. The organization of the terrorists has to be removed or they can grow in strength to the point they can take out millions at a time instead of 1000's.
The vision is to remove the governments that work with these terrorists. Create new governments that can openly discuss these issues among themselves and keep these terrorists from growing into a multinational force with international influence.
-
"age of terrorism"? when in our history has there been a time when people WEREN'T terrorised?
For Americans (who don't look beyond their borders) terrorism is something relatively new.
-
No problem here, that's why i asked (and used South Dakota instead of an "important" state. ;)
- edited -
-
Cooter,
I have reported it to the FBI. 8)
Look for white vans.
-
The report is simply wrong.
Hold on. I have to pick myself off the floor.
HOW, exactly, is it "wrong"?
Where are the errors?
It's not hard evidence, but a good guess of how many might be around.
There are numerous instances of specific numbers of weapons and the disposition of some of them. Thats "haed evidence".
This is also more like a case of guilty until proven innocent
No. Its not.
In most isntances, the report says something to the effect of "claimed to have been destroyed by Iraq".
Whenever thats the case, requring Iraq to support the claim is NOT requrinbg them to prove their innocence.
Iraqi - "We don't have any more WMD"
Inspector - "OK then show me the receipt of the destruction company"
Iraqi - "Ehm... say what?"
Inspector - "OK so they stay on the list"
Thats exactly right.
because there is absolutely no reason to believe the cunsupported claim is true.
I mean, if you're going to take their word for mit - why bother with inspectors in the first place?
So, I ask again:
Where are the WMDs that UNSCOM knew to be in IOraq in 1998?
-
The report is simply wrong.
Hold on. I have to pick myself off the floor.
HOW, exactly, is it "wrong"?
Where are the errors?
Who knows where the errors are. That's the problem with estimates. Asked Rumsfeld, he seems to know what we don't know.
Maybe they even used them on the Kurds or the Iranians. I doubt they left a receipt for that.
Perhaps the fact that after spending a few million (or was it billion?) dollars the US was unable to find these remaining WMD's is a hint that the report was wrong. "Innocent until proven guilty" and since there is no proof they are not guilty.
So, I ask again:
Where are the WMDs that UNSCOM knew to be in IOraq in 1998?
So I say again:
They didn't say they KNOW, only that they ASSUMED there MIGHT be.
And I'll also repeat that that whole report is simply a CIA/Washington ploy. The CIA spy that left UNSCOM blew the lid on that whole scam. Then there were several defectors who also stated there were no WMD (I forgot who they were but IIRC at least a relative of Saddam and a senior military). These people would have gotten money if they could show some of these weapons!
-
This web site will comply with the laws of the United States of America. If the laws do not prevent an image like this from being displayed then I will not require it to be removed. If at such time the Patriot Act II requires the removal of this image, down it goes without discussion.
However, I would prefer it not be published here at all -- not because I am in favor of the Patriot Act (I/II), but because I do not wish to be part of making it easier for the enemies of our country to gather information that can be used against us. I acknowledge that this information is readily available elsewhere, but we do not have to make it easier on them.
My belief in the first amendment is stronger, at the present time, than my wish to remove the image. I leave it up to you.
--- saint
IMPORTANT - SAINT: FYI, this information will no longer be allowed to be distributed if Bush passes the "Patriot" Act II as drafted and this picture will fall into the realm of "material support" under Section 121: "Definition of Terrorist Activities" and Section 202: "Distribution of Worst Case Scenario" Information. Currently, this is public under the Freedom of Information Act. If you don't want it here, it can be removed. We don't want you to "disappear". ;)
[edit] I hit the "report to moderator" button to make sure Saint sees the disclaimer. Heheh, turning my self in. We'll see what he says about the pic.
-
Cooter,
I have reported it to the FBI. 8)
Look for white vans.
Haha, they'll just add it to "my file". ;)
TA, how are we looking for them? I mean do we have to visually see them or do we have some kind of sniffer? If we do have a sniffer how well does it work range-wise?
-
Who knows where the errors are. That's the problem with estimates. Asked Rumsfeld, he seems to know what we don't know.
You dont get it - these arent estimates. They are eyes-on numbers from the 7 years of inspections by UNSCOM.
-
Who knows where the errors are. That's the problem with estimates. Asked Rumsfeld, he seems to know what we don't know.
You dont get it - these arent estimates. They are eyes-on numbers from the 7 years of inspections by UNSCOM.
You don't get it. These ARE estimates (especially on the "how many are still there" part) Even worse, they were obtained by the CIA infested UNSCOM, so the whole report is unreliable.
-
We have a reliable report now. We didn't before the war. We are doing inspections.
We found missles from France that could hit Israel, we found planes buried in the ground. We found the will and determination of Saddam to rebuild his weapon systems when he had the chance.
We found he was paying off the UN and giving out millions to individuals to remove him from UN sanctions, and it was working. We found he had made new aliances with terrorists, had a camp with a 747 for training in Iraq. We found terrorists living in Iraq.
We find new mass graves every week. We find evidence of horrible human rights attrocities that make past war crimes pale in comparison.
Saddam was a madman with potential. He killed without any care, and he was showing no signs of stopping. The US did the world a great service taking this guy down.
We took out the potiential successors (his sons) that shot people on the street, raped children, threw people in shreaders, and had iron madens (not the rock band) to help train their athletes.
These arguments comparing the other attrocities, ie:
how many people died in cambodia for instance...or jews during the spanish inquisition?
are pointless.
The US stood up and took him out. We got one. There are more out there.
Do civilized people allow these things to happen and avoid war. Or peace at any cost? Should we be involved in every conflict in the world or only the ones that threaten the free world or Just us?
The oil and the POWER is the issue. Oil = Money = Power.
The US in second in the world in pumping oil. Second only to Saudi Arabia. We had mexico and russia we can buy oil from.
If the oil supply stopped comming from the Middle East, the US is in the unique position of being able to maintain almost whole it's industrial power without it. Australia and the UK however wouldn't be able to survive. (check my facts at nationmaster.com)
Patrickl, are you an American? What do you know of America? That we liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy? You have a very skewed view of Americans and what we stand for. I don't know what goes on in New Zealand, probably I will never go there.
People overseas seem to think we are all rich. Probably because we do so much for other people. 90% of us are working class people who work to live. I personally know about 2 people who don't have to work, but that's it. I'm sure there are more around me.
The US shouldn't base it's foreign policy on somekind of global agreement. We do what we think is necessary to protect the US first, then to protect our allies. If the US is hit, we do respond.
-
We have a reliable report now. We didn't before the war. We are doing inspections.
Yes.
And it is in extreme contrast with the reliable report we had in January 1999 - from the inspectors that were there 1991-1998.
Where are the weapons we knew were there in December 1998?
Where are the facilities we knew were there in December 1998?
-
The Americans have captured Saddam and most of his henchmen, and have had over a year to interrogate/bribe them. Yet NOT ONE of them have spilt the beans.
So what, and how do you know? Just because it isn't on the evening news doesn't mean we don't know more information.
Oh I see. So Bush actually knows where all the WMDs are but is keeping quiet about it.
Presumably this is to ensure that the forthcoming election is a fair fight.
I must say that's very sporting of him. Perhaps he's not such a bad chap after all!
-
Here's another take on the situation out of London. Even if he didn't have WMD like EVERYBODY believed since he threw out the weapons inspectors AGAINST international law.
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/14004914?source=Evening%20Standard
-
Apparently some inspecters KNEW there was no proof for WMD in Iraq:
(statement changed, thanks Mameotron!)
Chief US inspector (David Kay) admits Iraq had no WMD stockpiles (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/iraq-j28_prn.shtml) and 'No WMD in Iraq' - chief US inspector (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=89442004)
-
ps So I don't need to waste any more of my time please be so kind as to use the Claim vs Fact database (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702) (or even Google) before coming out with more unsubstanciated claims. They have some really interesting Iraq items. Thanks!
Hey patrick, so I don't need to waste any more of MY time, please be so kind as to read and use information from www.glennbeck.com (http://www.glennbeck.com) or www.belling.com (http://www.belling.com) or lastly, www.rushlimbaugh.com (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com) ::)
Sorry to "waste" your time, but I'll help you solve that "problem". Stop replying to political threads.
The LEAST you could do is to post a site that has some semblance of fairness towards both sides, rather than a propoganda machine whose stated purpose is "a sister advocacy organization that will more actively promote progressive ideas and alternatives and counter right-wing policies"
You state there are "unsubstantiated" claims. There are articles/links given. You don't agree with them. That doesn't make them unsubstantiated. It makes them contrary to your opinion on the subject.
I can't believe you have the audacity to request we use your source because it's a "waste of your time".
Here's the deal. I'll gladly use your "infallible source" ::) ONLY if you use the three sites I listed above, using ONLY articles form those three sites to support your "unsubstantiated claims".
I don't believe even MrC would be that disingenuous to request we use your site so as to avoid wasting his time!
And to think, shmokes chastised me for USING a biased source. Heck, at least I didn't request he refute my claims based on that biased article ::)
-
So I figured I'd do a cursory search and see the extent of the bias by your stellar "this'll refute unsubstantiated claims", patrick.
So are they the fair and balanced debate source we should all look to when researching our facts? To quote from their site This new database charts conservatives' dishonesty and compares it with the truth. Each conservative quote will be matched against well-documented facts, so users can get a more accurate picture of the issues. And we need your help. If we're missing a lie or distortion you know of, please submit an entry. If it checks out, we will gladly add it to the database.
Why not just point us to MoveOn.org's website? ::)
-
ps So I don't need to waste any more of my time please be so kind as to use the Claim vs Fact database (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702) (or even Google) before coming out with more unsubstanciated claims. They have some really interesting Iraq items. Thanks!
Hey patrick, so I don't need to waste any more of MY time, please be so kind as to read and use information from www.glennbeck.com (http://www.glennbeck.com) or www.belling.com (http://www.belling.com) or lastly, www.rushlimbaugh.com (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com) ::)
Sorry to "waste" your time, but I'll help you solve that "problem". Stop replying to political threads.
The LEAST you could do is to post a site that has some semblance of fairness towards both sides, rather than a propoganda machine whose stated purpose is "a sister advocacy organization that will more actively promote progressive ideas and alternatives and counter right-wing policies"
You state there are "unsubstantiated" claims. There are articles/links given. You don't agree with them. That doesn't make them unsubstantiated. It makes them contrary to your opinion on the subject.
I can't believe you have the audacity to request we use your source because it's a "waste of your time".
Here's the deal. I'll gladly use your "infallible source" ::) ONLY if you use the three sites I listed above, using ONLY articles form those three sites to support your "unsubstantiated claims".
I don't believe even MrC would be that disingenuous to request we use your site so as to avoid wasting his time!
And to think, shmokes chastised me for USING a biased source. Heck, at least I didn't request he refute my claims based on that biased article ::)
Ok so now you are wasting my time too. Your reply is not based on the original statement. So in fact your reply is of no use, but I'll help you explain a bit further.
I was replying to TA pilot's statement that "they" KNEW there were WMD in Iraq in 1998. This is not a political issue (at least it isn't for me, but I'll concede that for TA Pilot it indeed seems to be a political issue). It's about facts and being able to use simple logic.
Actually they quote some of the same articles as I referred to.
Unfortunately, TA pilot seems unable to make the distinction between:
A) "no proof that there aren't any WMD in Iraq"
and
B) "proof that there are WMD in Iraq"
From A does not necessarily follow B. Otherwise your jails would be pretty full by now. Basically that closes the case already, but wait ... there is more
There is his claim that if the "remaining" in:
"produced" - "witnessed" = "remaining"
is not zero that that proofs that WMD were still in Iraq in 1998. One may assume "witnessed" is correct, but there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct. The records in Iraq weren't really that accurate anyway.
However, the function is actually:
"produced" - "witnessed" - "destroyed" - "used" - "boasting" = "remaining"
Since there is no way to KNOW "destroyed", "used" or "boasting" there is also no way to "KNOW" the value of "remaining".
Ergo, from the report TA pilot mentioned noone could have KNOWN WMD's to exist in Iraq. They could have assumed there might be, but it's not proof.
So from that it's easy to see that the report is no proof, but did the inspectors say they knew? I have shown at least 4 people (most of them the head of the inspectors at the time) who state they did NOT know. Most importantly the head inspector at the end of 1998 (hell, if he doesn't "KNOW" then how could "they" KNOW?). So that easily refutes the claim that "they" knew.
What makes this into a political problem is the fact that most inspectors have been exposed to have been under instructions from the US about trying to provoke Iraq. If that is true then the whole report is bogus and I must admit there is plenty evidence for that. In fact "they" even admitted this.
Here are some more political quotes (these are not all facts):
Glenn Beck:
- White House Source: No WMD in Iraq
- Israel knew Iraq had no WMD
- David Kay's conclusion that Iraq hasn't had an active chemical-weapons program since 1991
- Inspector: No WMD In Iraq
- WMDs never Bush's main focus: Clinton
- Hans Blix, made the point that unaccounted-for weapons was not the same thing as proof of the existence of such weapons.
- Butler: The fourth logical possibility is that they haven't been found because they don't exist, and didn't (exist).
- Butler: "The only honest answer I can give to you, which of those four would I choose as the best explanation, is, I don't know. (thanks for this link since now I have even Butler telling that he DIDN'T know, so that completes the set)
Belling.com:(Complete waste of time, nothing on site)
Rushlimbaugh (man that site sux):
- The one thing the Duelfer report says that we all expected it to say, is that it would repeat David Kay's comment about there being no weapons of mass destruction
- further I gave up. There are no facts there, only opinions.
-
There is his claim that if the "remaining" in:
"produced" - "witnessed" = "remaining"
is not zero that that proofs that WMD were still in Iraq in 1998. One may assume "witnessed" is correct, but there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct. The records in Iraq weren't really that accurate anyway.
However, the function is actually:
"produced" - "witnessed" - "destroyed" - "used" - "boasting" = "remaining"
Since there is no way to KNOW "destroyed", "used" or "boasting" there is also no way to "KNOW" the value of "remaining".
Using your own infallable logic, you have shown us that there is no way to prove that there ARE or ARE NOT any WMDs in Iraq.
This contradicts your statement:
Apparently some inspecters KNEW there were no WMD:
You said it yourself. No way to know the value of remaining. That obviously does not mean there are none.
-
There is his claim that if the "remaining" in:
"produced" - "witnessed" = "remaining"
is not zero that that proofs that WMD were still in Iraq in 1998. One may assume "witnessed" is correct, but there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct. The records in Iraq weren't really that accurate anyway.
However, the function is actually:
"produced" - "witnessed" - "destroyed" - "used" - "boasting" = "remaining"
Since there is no way to KNOW "destroyed", "used" or "boasting" there is also no way to "KNOW" the value of "remaining".
Using your own infallable logic, you have shown us that there is no way to prove that there ARE or ARE NOT any WMDs in Iraq.
I didn't say that exactly. You can proof quite easily that there are WMD in Iraq (find a WMD). It's just that you can't proof it from the assumption that once they might (even that is unsure) have been there and you didn't see them destroyed personally. There is indeed no way to proof that there are NO WMD.
This contradicts your statement:
Apparently some inspecters KNEW there were no WMD:
You said it yourself. No way to know the value of remaining. That obviously does not mean there are none.
The second statement is indeed an inaccurate report of the statements made by the inspecters and such. What they really said is in the quotes. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
Patrick, I didn't expect you to agree with me. You even went so far as to change your post to make your position more clear. My hat's off to you- it's rare to see that kind of behavior in these threads.
And, although it was completely overlooked by everyone, I am glad that you realize the importance of working out the situation in Isreal in relation to the whole Iraq situation.
-
Patrick, I didn't expect you to agree with me. You even went so far as to change your post to make your position more clear. My hat's off to you- it's rare to see that kind of behavior in these threads.
And, although it was completely overlooked by everyone, I am glad that you realize the importance of working out the situation in Isreal in relation to the whole Iraq situation.
Glad you approve. I'm really in this from a mathematical (logic) point of view. I'm sad that people with politcal views seem fit to change the laws of logic to suit their own needs.
There was an item on dutch television yesterday that claimed that americans (as in people from the USA) tend to watch comedians for reliable information on the political debate because they don't trust the reporters anymore. I assumed that was a bit of an exaggeration, but when I see sites like that RushLimbaugh site (and I assume the opposition will have similar sites) I can imagine why people lose faith in "reporters".
If more americans would realize the seriousness of the Israeli situation, maybe it could get worked out somehow. That would take away so much hatred towards the USA (and thus reduce terrorism). I haven't a clue how that can be fixed though. Basically two peoples with only one space to live in and they won't live together. Our (dutch) solution would be to create new land in the sea, but I doubt either party would accept that :P Maybe this wall will bring stability when the dust is settled down, but I'm not so sure about it.
Off topic, but for us dutchies it's actually pretty hard to see the difference between Kerry and Bush. Of course we can see the differences in mental capabilities between these candidates, but they are both so far right (relative to our politicians) that they would both be classed as extremist rightwing politicians.
-
Patrickl,
You are not an American. You have no idea where we stand. I am not from New Zeland either, so I don't comment on what they do there. Simple as that.
We know Saddam didn't have any by the time we got there. We didn't know that beforehand. Most of the world believed it.
and as for this but they are both so far right (relative to our politicians) that they would both be classed as extremist rightwing politicians.
If you think kerry is right wing I just shutter.
-
And think - all this lovely rhetoric. All a lie.
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons...
...The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War...
...The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties...
...Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future....
...But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace"
-- President George W. Bush
-
Patrickl,
You are not an American. You have no idea where we stand. I am not from New Zeland either, so I don't comment on what they do there. Simple as that.
We know Saddam didn't have any by the time we got there. We didn't know that beforehand. Most of the world believed it.
The point is that TA Pilot keeps harassing the threads with his claim that the inspectors KNEW there were WMD at the end of 1998. I have clearly shown this statement to be false both logically (you can't proof guilt by claiming there is no proof for innocence) and factually (I found statements of all the head inspectors of that time that they did NOT know for sure that there were WMD in Iraq)
What does this have to do with being an american or from New Zealand or from the Netherlands? Of course you can debate about how much certainty you put on the assumption that there might have been WMD (or indeed still are), or where they went if they did exist, or that you take a look at what Hans Blix found when he was told to get the WMD that Rumsfeld knew were there (but found nothing), or you can say he might have picked up the arms factoring again. Indeed one could.
A whole other discussion would be that the IAEA is complaining that the US is now effectively blocking their inspections of the nuclear facilities and that they have witnessed that said nuclear facilities are actually disappearing without authorization (i.e. someone is stealing the nuclear facilities). I don't care too much for that type of discussion though. I do care if people purposefully twist the truth.
-
The point is that TA Pilot keeps harassing the threads with his claim that the inspectors KNEW there were WMD at the end of 1998.
I'm sorry.
I dont recall seeing where you explained where the weapons are.
Iraq reported X number of weapons.
UNSCOM accounted for X-Y weapons.
Where are Y number of weapons?
-
And think - all this lovely rhetoric. All a lie.
<blablabla>
-- President George W. Bush
Actually, that speech at no point states that WMD's are in Iraq. That's just my point and that's also why I found so much support for my defense on DrewKaree's site. It's a fact acknowledged by all people with some knowledge in the matter that there was no proof that WMD's really were there for sure. Both left and right. Just assumptions that there might be or an assumption that there would be a WMD program in the future.
If you are looking for lies then you better check your own statement. Or maybe the statements of Rumsfeld (the only person I could find claims of that he KNEW the locations of the WMD).
-
The point is that TA Pilot keeps harassing the threads with his claim that the inspectors KNEW there were WMD at the end of 1998.
I'm sorry.
I dont recall seeing where you explained where the weapons are.
Iraq reported X number of weapons.
UNSCOM accounted for X-Y weapons.
Where are Y number of weapons?
I did explain. It might be a bit too complicated for you to grasp, but try reading it again (http://www.arcadecontrols.org/yabbse/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=25605;start=msg213420#msg213420)
-
The point is that TA Pilot keeps harassing the threads with his claim that the inspectors KNEW there were WMD at the end of 1998.
I'm sorry.
I dont recall seeing where you explained where the weapons are.
Iraq reported X number of weapons.
UNSCOM accounted for X-Y weapons.
Where are Y number of weapons?
T A Pilot, I think you're confusing having the last word with winning the argument.
With respect, I really don't see how patrickl can make his position any clearer.
As you've repeatedly ignored all the points he's made, I believe you have now lost the argument.
Time to move on.
-
I did explain.
Oh, I saw your explanation.
But it doesnt asnwer my question.
See, rather than accept what was reported by UNSCOM, you make two assumtipns:
"One may assume "witnessed" is correct, but there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct. The records in Iraq weren't really that accurate anyway."
You assume that the produced numbers are less than what was reported. If there were really fewer numbers than reported, this would neatly explain the difference between the reported and observed quantities.
-Why do you assume that the actual production numbers are less than reported?
-Why do you assume that the acutal production numbers are not equal to - or even MORE than reported?
As you said - "there is no way of knowing that the figures for "produced" are correct." If thats true, then why do you assume that the actual number was less, and not more, than reported?
Unless you can support your assumptions, you'll have to account for the difference between the produced and the accounted for.
Where are they?
"Since there is no way to KNOW "destroyed", "used" or "boasting" there is also no way to "KNOW" the value of "remaining"."
This is the second assumption, related to above. Rather than accept the reported number. you assume that Iraq decided to "boast" about its weapons quanities, in order to make itself look tougher than it is.
But - it makes no sense for Iraq to do this, given the situation.
Think about this for just a minutte:
-I'm under investigation for having illegal weapons
-I report that I had a quantity greater than what I actually had.
-The investigators find a quantity of weapons smaller than I reported (which they would, necessarily).
The investigators will think... I no longer have any weapons?
Why?
So, unless you can support your assumtions, they arent valid - and then neither is the argument based upon them.
Show that Iraq exaggerated its claims.
Show that the Iraqi weapons claims arent accurate.
If you cant do that, then explain the disposition of the difference in numbers between the numbers produced and the numbers accounted for.
-
Ok so now you are wasting my time too. Your reply is not based on the original statement. So in fact your reply is of no use, but I'll help you explain a bit further.
Oh thank GOD! I was hoping to hear more of your 'splanation.
Sorry to waste your time.
Is it hard to find hats?
-
I've got it:
Think about this for just a minute:
-I'm under investigation for having 2 spidermen in my pocket
-I report that I had a quantity greater than what I actually had.
-The investigators find a quantity of spidermen smaller than I reported (which they would, necessarily).
The investigators will think... I no longer have any spidermen?
Why?
Show that I exaggerated my claims.
Show that my spidermen claims aren't accurate.
If you can't do that, then explain the disposition of the difference in numbers between the numbers produced and the numbers accounted for. :P
-
If more americans would realize the seriousness of the Israeli situation, maybe it could get worked out somehow. That would take away so much hatred towards the USA (and thus reduce terrorism). I haven't a clue how that can be fixed though. Basically two peoples with only one space to live in and they won't live together. Our (dutch) solution would be to create new land in the sea, but I doubt either party would accept that :P Maybe this wall will bring stability when the dust is settled down, but I'm not so sure about it.
You are so right. I wonder how many of us Americans realize that, although the Palestenians hate the Jews for obvious reasons, they hate Americans almost as much because they honestly believe we are supplying all the money & weapons to Isreal to fight against them.
An attack on the World Trade Center certainly was an attack on the US financial companies. And I understand the significance that September 11 happened to be the day before the Jewish new year. Probably the fact that more people would be at work on Tuesday overruled the decision to attack on Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year).
As you said, I can't think of any solution to how 2 countries can live in the same place they both consider holy and God-given.
-
I did explain.
Oh, I saw your explanation.
But it doesnt asnwer my question.
Even if you are only looking for the opinion pieces, did you miss the part where:
- the inspectors themselves said the reports weren't 100% accurate?
- the report claims on several occasions that the number accounted for is actually higher than the number declared? The report itself proofs it's not usable to exactly calculate the number of remaining WMD.
Kinda lame that you try to defend your statement by objecting to only some of the assumptions, while the rest of my explanation easily disproves your statement. Leave the assumptions you object to out and the explanation still stands. I probably should have left them out myself, but I just wanted to show there were enough uncertainties in the figures itself to disallow the 100% certainty that you seem to find in the subtraction of these figures.
If you want an opinion; I guess you have no case so you take some of the assumptions out of context and think you can win a discussion that way. Is that the "new" style of politics ... don't go for the truth but give an opinion on part of an opinion and hope that impresses people (or bores the opponent) enough to actually win an argument against the truth? Really sad.
The main thing still is that the fact that you can't prove you destroyed something (or never had it in the first place) doesn't proof you have it now. That the report is stated to be flawed/incomplete (by the inspectors) is merely an extra bonus, but not essential.
ps Since I opened this can of worms myself let me explain the boasting. The inspectors said (I read this in several interviews) that Saddam probably boasted the numbers of WMD to frighten his neighbors (before 1991). I'm not making this up, the inspectors gave this as one (of several) explanation(s) for the difference remaining.
-
Hi Danny, Glad to see you are awake.
people overseas KNOW that 10% of you are FILTHY rich, and 90% of you are working class.
Then why do people think we are all rich? Isn't that pretty much the way it is in most developed countries? Is there something wrong with being rich?
patrickl may not know what goes on in NZ either seeings how he is from holland...
I thought about it, and I really didn't know that. I am now exploring why I should care then why anybody outside of the US should worry about it.
raped children and shot people on the street? are you for real? do you really believe that? i suppose they kill their granmas and make mince pies out of them too?
Yes, Danny. His sons and he specialized in that type of terror. Google it. It's in the news all over what these people did. I mean, do you disagree with that? Do you also think there was no holocaust?
Some guys made a DVD of it, I believe it's called the "deception of america"
you will probably find missiles in Israel that could hit france, what you gonna do about it?
That shows where you are comming from. To put Saddam and Iraq on the same moral plane with Israel, a democratic country show's your fundamental misunderstanding of the issues we face.
It's like the same argument you came out with Gitmo. At least 7 of the 200 released so far have went back their terrorists ways. 6 of them were killed in acts of terror by the US forces. We have to be really careful who we release.
I don't believe nationmaster or any one source for anything. It's mearly a site with some useful stats relavant to some international discussions.
I don't speak without having some facts behind what I say. I don't make my opinions based on gut reactions. Opinions and facts merge together in some thinking, but I like to see the facts, all the facts. Good ones and bad ones.
Hey, I used to be on the democratic side. But over the years I have seen elements of the dems make no sense. I see the same thing on the Republican side.
I don't like to comment on other countrys politics. I don't see where it's my business. I don't understand why people in Holland or Australia or the UK want to comment on our internal politics. Even International politics and issues are decided from within.
The US wants to make the world a democracy. We want to protect our people from the fear of terrorists. We want to insure the people of the US are protected. We feel what we have done is just and legal and with proper goals and outcomes. Some people don't agree.
If collectively in the US we don't agree with a policy, we vote against those who vote for it. Do the same thing in your country internally. Whomever win have the right to drive policy until the next election. That's how democracy works.
I don't understand your politics and you can't understand mine. Sorry. To believe you can understand the dynamics of US policy and politics based on a 1/2 TV show (or our 1/2 tv show about yours) is silly. At best you get a superficial view of the issues. If you believe you can, then watch a video on how to be a brain surgeon and put up a sign.
-
1) you will probably find missiles in Israel that could hit france, what you gonna do about it?
Let them. But someone, please, for the love of Pete, SAVE THE CROISSANTS!
granmas and make mince pies out of them too?
*homer simpson voice* mmmmm Grandma's mincemeat pies....droooool
you don't think that australia or the UK can buy oil from elsewhere too?
they won't take boomerangs for payment, and the British can get by with solar power, what with all the good weather over there
patrickl may not know what goes on in NZ either seeings how he is from holland...
I thought just Brits and Aussies were full of themselves ;D
people overseas KNOW that 10% of you are FILTHY rich, and 90% of you are working class...
I AM filthy, but not rich. I AM working, but I have no class. Your definitions are sorely lacking, and I resent the implication. Good day, sir ;)
That's ONE discrepancy i could see. there must be others too...
that means the whole site is shite. I know, because patrick toleded me so.
-
No tolededing will be tolerated. >:(
-couldn't resist.
"I am now exploring why I should care then why anybody outside of the US should worry about it....I don't like to comment on other countrys politics. I don't see where it's my business. I don't understand why people in Holland or Australia or the UK want to comment on our internal politics. Even International politics and issues are decided from within..."
then later: "The US wants to make the world a democracy."
Now, let's pretend we're China for a change of flavor (flavour for those of us without "real" english ;))
[in chinese...] I am now exploring why I should care then why anybody outside of China should worry about it....I don't like to comment on other countrys politics. I don't see where it's my business. I don't understand why people in Holland or Australia or the UK (or the US) want to comment on our internal politics. Even International politics and issues are decided from within... China wants to make the world communist.
So is wanting the world to be democratic anymore "right" than wanting the world to be communist? Thoeocratic (sp)? You couldn't base an arguement on freedom because that hinges on internal politics. By saying the US wants the world to be democratic, it says the current internal politics of any Nation not democratic is insufficient. So you actually "comment" quite loudly on other countries internal politics.
You further my point when you say:
"To put Saddam and Iraq on the same moral plane with Israel, a democratic country"
That says the morals of democracy are "better" than theocracy. Now let me make it clear: I agree they are not on the same moral plane, but it's not because Israel is democratic. After all, look at Hitlers rise to power.
-
4) Patrickl, are you an American? What do you know of America? That we liked the Lord of the Rings trilogy? You have a very skewed view of Americans and what we stand for. I don't know what goes on in New Zealand, probably I will never go there.
As Danny_Galaga pointed out I'm from Holland, but all in all I have spend many months in the US in four different states (mostly in California though). My dad lived there for years and my wife lived in Michigan for a year. She also works for an american company so I meet lots of americans that way too. Actually that's how I gained most of my insights about the differences. When americans come live in the Netherlands they quickly realize what freedoms (can you actually have that word in plural form?) they missed back home, but they are all scared of our speeds limits (and even more about the speeds we actually travel at).
Anyway, I don't see what me knowing the US or not has anything to do with the subject of this thread. Is this about the censorship or freedoms thing? I know a nice tale about that. I was in Palm Beach (or Fort Lauderdale but it doesn't matter) laying on the beach and suddenly some police officers came walking on the beach. They came for a lady wearing a thong (we call that a "string" btw) Apparently that was not allowed and she had to put on extra clothes! I guess here biggest crime was that she looked good.
Oh now you got me started, I thought of another one. During my stay in California I also went to a beach and there were actually riots. I didn't understand (or care about) what was going on at the time (kinda scared of getting shot to be honest), but later on the news they explained that some ladies decided to lay on the beach naked. The police tried to arrest them and the other beach dwellers attacked the police.
I'm still wondering where you see that I have a skewed view on americans. I have to admit I came mostly in touch with well educated americans, but that shouldn't be much of a problem.
-
1)
That's ONE discrepancy i could see. there must be others too...
that means the whole site is shite. I know, because patrick toleded me so.
HO YEAH BABY! One error and you're outta here! Oh no wait, it just means you can't use the information to claim that you are 100% sure about something (i.e. no betting of whole live savings on facts being true).
-
HO YEAH BABY! One error and you're outta here! Oh no wait, it just means you can't use the information to claim that you are 100% sure about something (i.e. no betting of whole live savings on facts being true).
Yet we were told there were no WMD's and we've got to believe those reports. Except enough intelligence agencies had reports stating the contrary. I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.
Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")
-
If you'll allow me to go off topic for a moment, I'd like to share parts of an e-mail from a relative in the U. S. Marine Corps who is currently in Iraq. These are his opinions on how the war is going.
Can't really say we need anything specific, but a few suggestions would be: Candy, Snack Food (especially Trail Mix for energy), Foot Powder, and Baby Wipes. Baby Wipes are the Dalai Lama here in the combat zone, since we get the highly rated shower at least once every two weeks or so, whether we need it or not.
> The travel sizes are best since we can just put them right into our
packs,
> and they don't take up too much space or weight. Doesn't sound like
much,
> but every little bit makes a difference when you are carrying your
whole
> life on your back, along with the other 100 pounds of gear (helmet,
flak
> jacket, SAPI plates, weapons, ammo, water, maps, radios, knives,
bayonets,
> night vision gear). Would not recommend tapes, cd's, etc being sent.
> Paperback books and magazines are good also. Gatorade packages and the
> small Crystal Light packages work well also.
>Morale remains very high. This is a stressful situation, to say the
>least, but most of these guys are thriving in the environment, due to the fact that it is they type of challenge they have been looking forward to and training for. The enemy is giving them lots of chances. If you are watching or listening to the news, you can understand. Seems like they're getting very desperate and scared as the elections approach, both ours and the ones scheduled here in Iraq. We have a lot of locals coming to us every day, supplying information on the bad guys, because they don't want the idiots in their neighborhoods, around their families.
>Operations tempo remains very high. Always on the move when we are outside the wire, in order to reduce the targeting against us, and keep the enemy off balance. Works like a charm for the most part, they can't respond or react quick enough, other than die most of the time. We truly do own the night. The night scares the living hell out of the bad guys, because they can't see or hear us coming. Our Scout Sniper Teams have struck fear in our entire Area of Operations (AO), which is now bigger than the state of Rhode Island. The US Army used to cover this same area with 4 Mechanized Battalions, which we are now doing with 1 Infantry Battalion. Has freed up freedom of movement and operational tactics for us. We are outnumbered as all hell, but we can basically shoot in any direction, so that makes it easy.
> Still think we are going to have to deal with Iran and Syria in the
> near future, since that's where far too many of these idiots are
> coming
from.
One step at a time.
-
HO YEAH BABY! One error and you're outta here! Oh no wait, it just means you can't use the information to claim that you are 100% sure about something (i.e. no betting of whole live savings on facts being true).
Yet we were told there were no WMD's and we've got to believe those reports. Except enough intelligence agencies had reports stating the contrary.
Can you really show us an intelligence report that states that there were WMD in Iraq (after 1998) for sure? Cause I read a lot of reports finding the quotes and not one report or interview actually stated that they were sure there were WMD (and for that matter none that stated there weren't either). Only that there might be a chance that there would be some (or that they might be produced in the future). These intelligence reports always seem to have a backdoor for covering peoples asses. They are not hard facts and they don't want to be accounted for when they get it wrong.
Of course when you read the headlines you can get the wrong impressing because the reporters making the headlines don't write "Inspector says: WMD might be in Iraq", but they go for "Inspector says: WMD in Iraq" (in which the latter of course is not an exact abbreviation of the story)
I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.
Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")
That's a perfectly valid statement. In fact, I myself belief there is a chance that WMD will still be found or that there will be evidence that they were moved to Syria (or something)
-
If you'll allow me to go off topic for a moment, I'd like to share parts of an e-mail from a relative in the U. S. Marine Corps who is currently in Iraq. These are his opinions on how the war is going.
The son of my wife's brother is also in Iraq. He writes similar reports home.
He was on patrol duty for the last month and he finds it really odd to go have tea with the Iraqi's. You never know who is the idiot, but still you have to go out and be friendly with the people to gain their trust so they will tell on the bad ones (at least that is the dutch approach in these situations). Must be a very weird situation to be in, but he is happy that he can help these poor people get their life back on the road.
-
Can you really show us an intelligence report that states that there were WMD in Iraq (after 1998) for sure? Cause I read a lot of reports finding the quotes and not one report or interview actually stated that they were sure there were WMD (and for that matter none that stated there weren't either). Only that there might be a chance that there would be some (or that they might be produced in the future). These intelligence reports always seem to have a backdoor for covering peoples asses. They are not hard facts and they don't want to be accounted for when they get it wrong.
It usually has to be declassified, or portions of them have to be declassified, so I'll just assume that since people can see parts of them, that they do exist, and that what they say is how decisions are made, based on whether the reports and what might happen...I mean, sure, they supposedly had WMD's in Russia too, but who am I to believe reports that may not actually exist or photos that could have been doctored ::)
I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.
Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")
That's a perfectly valid statement. In fact, I myself belief there is a chance that WMD will still be found or that there will be evidence that they were moved to Syria (or something) You're flat out amazing! Disproving a negative....a perfectly valid statement!
Oh, and without the ;) smiley, they'll think you agree with me that the weapons were moved or something. And I was called a crackpot who believes in conspiracy theories for saying that. Go back and add the ;) to cover your arse...it'll be better that way
-
What do you get on social security in the US? not much right?
every person I know on Social Security makes, at MINIMUM, half of what I make for the month.
And at that rate, I hold no hopes whatsoever that I will get a dime from Social Security. There have been studies that show the amount that each person has paid into Social Security is paid back to them within the first two years of them getting on the program.
That's why it's the "third rail" of politics.
Oh, and I'm still filthy, but far from rich.
we are currently haggling with east timor over gas rights
Why didn't you guys just ask me? Just pay for postage and give me a stipend of $200/month for Mexican food, and I'll bottle and send you guys all the gas I can produce.
Terrorists will want to attack you for helping the U.S. They don't attack you for negotiating gas prices.
-
and i'm not referring to the unfortunate side-effects of your mexican food plan (insert smiley face here) ;)
I figured politics = a person full of crap, so your gas plan HAD to be DrewKaree eating Mexican = Gas Plan solution.
-
hey, don't american cars run on gas? that's why there are so many fat people there, so they can run their cars. it's a catch 22 of course, fat people need big cars, which need more gas, which need fatter people to power them ;)
actually, I've found a "magic potion" to make a more "productive" refinery. Have some frijoles with a glass of (take your pick they both work equally well) Foster's or Guinness. Pabst works great if you need production at the other end of the "factory".
It's like using premium in your car instead of regular
;D
-
oh, i noticed you used the word 'arse' earlier. goodonya mate ;D
I figured it would help you if I sprinkled a little "colour" into the conversation. And to give you an Americanized reply for "goodonya", righbackatcha, bub! ;D
So lemme get this straight. Australia isn't buying the gas from them, they're poking a hole in the ground on their side of the line, which happens to go into the large underground supertanker holding the gas? Is this in the water, requiring a derrick of some sort, or what....'splain the thing a bit better, as I read "maritime border" to mean it's out in the ocean.
Course, you guys are surrounded by ocean...must be why yer all wet! ;)
Hey, could this be (insert shameless plug for other thread I started) "semantics"?
-
I mean, sure, they supposedly had WMD's in Russia too, but who am I to believe reports that may not actually exist or photos that could have been doctored ::)
Of course they have WMD in russia. There are plenty in the USA. What's your point?
I'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.
Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")
That's a perfectly valid statement. In fact, I myself belief there is a chance that WMD will still be found or that there will be evidence that they were moved to Syria (or something)
You're flat out amazing! Disproving a negative....a perfectly valid statement!
Oh, and without the ;) smiley, they'll think you agree with me that the weapons were moved or something. And I was called a crackpot who believes in conspiracy theories for saying that. Go back and add the ;) to cover your arse...it'll be better that way
I don't need to cover my ass. I never claimed to knew absolute truth. I'm only complaining that TAP is not covering his ass.
The january 1999 report does not proof WMD's exist, but it also doesn't proof they were not there. However, it might support the notion that there was still a chance that there might be some WMD left. So since they cannot be found now either:
A) they weren't there to begin with (zero left at the end of 1998)
B) they were destroyed between 1998 and 2003
C) they were moved out of Iraq (for example, taken away by the terrorists that flocked to Iraq)
D) they just have not been found yet
Personally I think A and B are most likely and C and D are getting less likely every day (and every million the US spent trying to find them before the elections are over) Since there is still a chance C or D will be true, you won't see me write they are not true.
I guess the issue where we actually differ in opinion is if the remote chance that someone might have WMD is actually a reason to go to war. Especially after the "proof" your intelligence agency gave was so obviously shown to be flawed (Hans Blixx could find nothing at the sites where the CIA claimed the WMD might be found)
-
hey, don't american cars run on gas? that's why there are so many fat people there, so they can run their cars. it's a catch 22 of course, fat people need big cars, which need more gas, which need fatter people to power them ;)
Well, here we have a solution! Drew CAN power his car, generator, local electric company, with gas! ;) ;)
http://mitglied.lycos.de/cturare/lit.htm
-
Danny,
What do you do for a living? Pick up change in parking lots or what? Professional vegrant?
You have to fuel your economy unless you want to live in a grass hut.
-
a picture. the venn diagram looking part are the maritime borders...
Ummm...whut? ???
Did you forget to post that picture? I don't see anything.
-
a picture. the venn diagram looking part are the maritime borders...
Ummm...whut? ???
Did you forget to post that picture? I don't see anything.
what are you on about drew? you need new glasses ;)
-
Danny,
What do you do for a living? Pick up change in parking lots or what? Professional vegrant?
You have to fuel your economy unless you want to live in a grass hut.
hey didn't you say somewhere else that YOU used to pick up change in parking lots? if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me...
-
I heard the best reason why the US knew there was WMD in IRAQ. Because the US has the receipts.
-
Iraq was a risk to the world.
The evidence is/was clear. Get over you peaceniks. Move over and let the US save the world. You can build us a statue later.
Here's some more evidence for those fact challenged liberals of the world:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
-
I guess one statistic says it all.
Americans Killed
Before Gulf II 36
After Gulf II 1000
From these two numbers it's really easy to see how the terrorism has dropped dramatically ... ehm no ... wait ... that can't be right ..... uhhhhhm .... Hey that looks like it's risen :-\
-
I guess one statistic says it all.
Americans Killed
Before Gulf II 36
After Gulf II 1000
From these two numbers it's really easy to see how the terrorism has dropped dramatically ... ehm no ... wait ... that can't be right ..... uhhhhhm .... Hey that looks like it's risen :-\
You're forgetting the 3000+ Americans that were killed in the world trade center.
Don't worry, the majority of us that will be voting to keep Bush in, haven't forgotten.
-
You're forgetting the 3000+ Americans that were killed in the world trade center.
Yes. Yes. But, he also forgot to include the 2400 Americans Iraq killed when they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941 ::)
-
Shmokes,
You are forgetting another thing, the US is the only world superpower. We are a big target, and we have a lot to loose.
The rest of the world is wrapped up into somekind of socialist coccon that they seem to think will protect them. While we waited and passively let these terrrorist cells grow in the 90's they became very sophisticated with big targets in mind.
Once they hit us, we had to do something or suffer more civilian deaths. We are just lucky so far that they haven't hit a school like in Russia.
The UN is a joke. They haven't stopped any world aggression. What could they do about this? Saddam had gathered a huge fortune in the blunders of the UN's oil for food program. The rest of the region shuned him, so he was making friends with outlaws.
It's clear when he got out of the sanction box he was going to build up his weapons again. His type of regieme needs enemies to fight, Iran, Kuwait, and now the evil USA.
What we did was nip this problem in the bud. France & Russia & Germany were into Saddam for Billions. High ranking UN officials were paid off. There was a lot for them to lose and thing for them to gain.
Bush had the foresight to see he had the opportunity to crush Iraq before it got out of hand. In doing so he kept the terrorists on the run and kept the war over there, not over here.
Now if I understand the other side, the best approach was to NOT fight them on their turf, but to solidify ours. I haven't understood exactly what that is between the politics and distortions. It's not clear exactly what Kerry or Gore would have done, but you can bet it would have been based on opinion polls.
Bush sees the broad war on terror as a struggle for freedom. Fundamentalist Islam doesn't equal freedom. These people would create a society much like the Taliban's Afghanistan over the entire planet if they could. When the people have nothing to look forward to and are trained to hate from a young age we have a lot to fear.
Bush's vision is to transform the area into at least a quasi democracy like Pakistan. Develop trade and institute a core system that has the potential to mature into a full blown republic. In that way he can soften the ideology that created the Taliban and Al-Queda in the first place.
It is a gamble, that's for sure. But if it pays off Bush will go down in history as the man who stopped terrorism.
Carter tried it, Reagan tried it, and Clinton worked very hard at stopping it. But we either hole up in our homes or we fight it head on. Because they were bringing the conflict here.
Bush took the opportunity to clean up a very nasty zone before it could rise up and threaten us.
Kerry knows the score. He knew what he was voting for when he did it. He knew that GWB would go on his own. Kerry isn't stupid, but he thinks you are to believe he did it to "support" Bush. He did it in hopes that a very popular president (approval rating at the time 80+) would be given enough rope to hang himself and open up the office for the left.
If you don't believe that, then you must believe there is a vast right wing conspircy. Sorry. If there was, I'd like to find those guys and we would have a few beers.
Kerry is a politician. Bush is a politician with a vision.
Kerry is for Kerry. Bush is a man fighting for what he believes is the best for the USA.
Everybody believe what they want, or whatever makes them feel better. Fool yourself into believing that Bush is misguided, or that Kerry actually knows what poor people go through. Fool yourself into a false sense of security that there is NO terror threat.
Go ahead, knock yourself out. Warp yourself back to 9/10/01. I'd like to too. Too bad I wake up and have to live in the real world and deal with real problems everyday. When I look at my son I know that we have to do something bold and something hard to fix this.
-
I guess one statistic says it all.
Americans Killed
Before Gulf II 36
After Gulf II 1000
From these two numbers it's really easy to see how the terrorism has dropped dramatically ... ehm no ... wait ... that can't be right ..... uhhhhhm .... Hey that looks like it's risen :-\
You're forgetting the 3000+ Americans that were killed in the world trade center.
Don't worry, the majority of us that will be voting to keep Bush in, haven't forgotten.
The only relation that the 911 attacks have with gulf war II is that Osam Bin Laden got so pissed off by the US troops stationed in Saudia Arabia during the fisrt gulf war that this resulted in him starting the offensive. I don't see how that is a point you'd wish to bring out in this case.
-
Patrickl,
It doesn't matter why OBL started it. It doesn't matter what his reasons.
It doesn't matter if he agreed to the GW 1 or not, does it?
If somebody builds a bomb and sets it off because of a movie, is it the movie or the man that is responsible? Is it some kind of reason or justification for slicing the necks of stewardesses with knives and flying a plane into a building? Does it somehow justify killing all those people because the thought it was trespassing?
What kind of logic is that?
-
The only relation that the 911 attacks have with gulf war II is that Osam Bin Laden got so pissed off by the US troops stationed in Saudia Arabia during the fisrt gulf war that this resulted in him starting the offensive. I don't see how that is a point you'd wish to bring out in this case.
You still didn't include the 3000+ Americans in your before or after, so you did forget about them, but now I understand your motives.
I thought you were trying to participate in an educated argument. But I see you're still mad about Bush beating Gore, and you just want to post anti Bush statements.
I got it, I wont argue with you, but again those of us that remember the 3000+ Americans killed will get Bush re-elected.
-
So since they cannot be found now either:
A) they weren't there to begin with (zero left at the end of 1998)
B) they were destroyed between 1998 and 2003
C) they were moved out of Iraq (for example, taken away by the terrorists that flocked to Iraq)
D) they just have not been found yet
Personally I think A and B are most likely and C and D are getting less likely every day (and every million the US spent trying to find them before the elections are over) Since there is still a chance C or D will be true, you won't see me write they are not true.
--->LINKY Charles Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month he could not rule out Saddam's transfer of Iraqi missiles and weapons of mass destruction to Syria. (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_8.html) LINKY<---
So I won't see you write that this is not true, as it may be possible, BUT when intelligence agencies other than American agencies such as Britain, Russia, Italy, et al said they believe Sadaam had WMD's, you COULD see your way fit to write about how it wasn't true.
So to recap, the U.S. believed WMD's to be there. Do you disagree that going in there for WMD's would have been a good reason? (oh, and that's not on the list of main reasons we went in there)
We thought it best to go in, surpise Sadaam, and boot him out for failing to comply with the U.N. resolution (take your pick of resolutions....didn't he violate EACH AND EVERY ONE?!?)
To recap THAT....let's not talk and talk and talk and pass 500 resolutions while he moves everything....dammit, if they aren't there, they'll hang me high....Mr Kerry, should we go to war? Vote yes if we should, vote no if we shouldn't....Yes but we should see what the U.N. thinks? Okey dokey......ahhh screw it, those (and I'll leave France out of it, according to this story) Russians and Syrians defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms
You seem to view the oil for food scandal as such a small point. I can't help you if you can't wrap your mind around the fact that he was using the money from the program to buy and fund weapons and weapons programs. I just can't help you. The rose color you've painted on your glasses is permanent and the blinders on the sides only allow the pretty colors to come through
We went into Iraq for a myriad of reasons, and if the list were numbered, WMD's were down somewhere in the high teens or low 20's. Since the argument always seems to come back to WMD's and how wrong we are for going in since they don't have any, it's not a tiny point that the scandal (or SCAM, as I put it) was going on.
I give you information about the program which you have either not deemed worthy of reading, or you dismiss it out of hand as "partisan reporting", and yet you seem to think I'm the "uninformed yank". While you're not a yank, I think on the "uninformed" point you may want to pick up your telephone and call the Kettle....go ahead, tell him he's black ::)
Oh, and Dexter....patrickL is resorting to name-calling. I can't tell my mommy on him, but seeing your thin skin prance around in your skirt complaining that "we're being mean"...you're the closest girl(y man) I can snitch to.
Please, show us all your righteous indignation at patrick's mean-spirited attacks ::) ::)
-
Patrickl,
It doesn't matter why OBL started it. It doesn't matter what his reasons.
It doesn't matter if he agreed to the GW 1 or not, does it?
If somebody builds a bomb and sets it off because of a movie, is it the movie or the man that is responsible? Is it some kind of reason or justification for slicing the necks of stewardesses with knives and flying a plane into a building? Does it somehow justify killing all those people because the thought it was trespassing?
What kind of logic is that?
Indeed, there was no logic to count the 3000 people who died from an incident unrelated to Iraq. I was just pointing that out. I'm glad you finally see how illogical it is to draw such conclusions.
-
The only relation that the 911 attacks have with gulf war II is that Osam Bin Laden got so pissed off by the US troops stationed in Saudia Arabia during the fisrt gulf war that this resulted in him starting the offensive. I don't see how that is a point you'd wish to bring out in this case.
You still didn't include the 3000+ Americans in your before or after, so you did forget about them, but now I understand your motives.
I thought you were trying to participate in an educated argument. But I see you're still mad about Bush beating Gore, and you just want to post anti Bush statements.
I got it, I wont argue with you, but again those of us that remember the 3000+ Americans killed will get Bush re-elected.
That's more because people are too dumb to understand things rather than that it has any true relation to the matter at hand. Iraq has no relation to the 911 attacks. Again, other than that the Gulf War 1 started Osama Bin ladens rage.
Indeed I think bush is a threat to the world (the US included), but I don't see what Gor has to do with this.
-
bla bla and bla bla
Drew,
Even if Iraq had these WMD than it still was not a threat to the US. However Hans Blix demonstrated that US intelligence didn't know anything so even before the war it was quite obvious (to the worl outside the US) that there most likely was no WMD threat at all.
I find that UN scam a pathetic point yes. It doesn't have anything to do with the war. The only thing I can see is a minor case when you look at it from a fight against terrorism perspective. Saddam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions. Did you actually read the Duelffer report? Or did you just take a line from the abstract that sounded nice to you? If you read the whole thing then you see it states that Saddam's WMD program was completely dead (and in fact on most counts even pathetic while it was running). The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.
Now if you want to call me uninformed again, maybe you should make sure you actually read the reports you quote from.
-
I find that UN scam a pathetic point yes. It doesn't have anything to do with the war. The only thing I can see is a minor case when you look at it from a fight against terrorism perspective.
Sadaam gives oil vouchers for food. The countries turn around, hand the oil vouchers to the "cashier", then pay for the oil. The "cashier" then gives the money to Sadaam, who in turn puts it into buying more weapons.
You somehow can't process that it has anything to do with the war. Gotcha.
You CAN see a "minor case" in the light of fighting terrorism. Gotcha. Minor. Now we're starting to get somewhere.
Saddam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions.
and I quote "The report said state-owned companies in Russia and Syria defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms to Baghdad." Maybe you'd like to explain, Mr Kerry. Did you vote for or against the 87 billion?
The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.
Right, weak. I'm just going to guess, but it was also ok for France Syria & Russia to supply Sadaam with weapons WHILE the sanctions were in place, right?
Now if you want to call me uninformed again, maybe you should make sure you actually read the reports you quote from.
I just quoted directly from it. Perhaps you might be better served by reading to the bottom of the page.....or better yet, try adding up:
Oil money paid to Sadaam + Sadaam purchasing weapons + Sadaam getting weapons while under sanctions = ?
So far, your answer is 0, or "minimal", guess it depends on the day and what was found out. Perhaps throw a new battery in that calculator...the old one seems to be in backwards ::)
-
I find that UN scam a pathetic point yes. It doesn't have anything to do with the war. The only thing I can see is a minor case when you look at it from a fight against terrorism perspective.
Sadaam gives oil vouchers for food. The countries turn around, hand the oil vouchers to the "cashier", then pay for the oil. The "cashier" then gives the money to Sadaam, who in turn puts it into buying more weapons.
You somehow can't process that it has anything to do with the war. Gotcha.
Yes so? Saddam had plenty of cenventional arms anyway. Why would a few more be such a problem? Again, I don't see it's right (if it indeed happened as your source suspects), but it has nothing to do with why the war was started or why only the US can see why this war needs to be fought.
You CAN see a "minor case" in the light of fighting terrorism. Gotcha. Minor. Now we're starting to get somewhere.
Don't lamely twist my words again.
Saddam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions.
and I quote "The report said state-owned companies in Russia and Syria defied UN sanctions and supplied weapons and platforms to Baghdad." Maybe you'd like to explain, Mr Kerry. Did you vote for or against the 87 billion?
I meant WMD of course
The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.
Right, weak. I'm just going to guess, but it was also ok for France Syria & Russia to supply Sadaam with weapons WHILE the sanctions were in place, right?
Can you make the distinction between weapons of mass destruction and a handgun? Or bullets for the police?
Now if you want to call me uninformed again, maybe you should make sure you actually read the reports you quote from.
I just quoted directly from it. Perhaps you might be better served by reading to the bottom of the page.....or better yet, try adding up:
Oil money paid to Sadaam + Sadaam purchasing weapons + Sadaam getting weapons while under sanctions = ?
So far, your answer is 0, or "minimal", guess it depends on the day and what was found out. Perhaps throw a new battery in that calculator...the old one seems to be in backwards ::)
I think I better not call you uninformed, but unintelligent. You get enough inormation, yet you are unable to understand what it means.
Again you go completely bananas over some meaningless point. So the now find that Saddam was indeed buying guns. So what? It again has no bearing on the reason why Bush wanted to fight this war or why everyon else was against it. Also it does not explain why Bush made such a mess of the war (or rather the post war)
You can try to find all the extraneous facts you want but it still remains that this is an ill begotten war and the Bush made a mess of it.
-
huh? patricl is pointing out the bleeding obvious fact that the US DIDN'T go to war against Iraq because of what happened on september 11, 2001. not even dubya would be sily enough to say that...
You are right, the US didn't go after Sadam because of what happened on Sept 11th, the US went after him so it would not happen again.
If he had weapons of mass destruction we would have (if not already) sold them to guys that were willing to use them. Now the rest of the world knows to leave us alone.
Sadam was a danger to the US. Korea has the sense to leave us alone, and Bush has the sense to leave Korea alone. Kerry on the other hand does not have that sense, so for everyone
-
*screen waves and weird sound is heard*
Bush should nuke the whole planet. Then the US can finally be safe. Aaaaah bliss .... oho .... SNAP ... POP ... ah ---by the flying spaghetti monster's hairy nether regions!--- woke from my wet dream again ...
* dream scene ends*
-
[quoteYou can try to find all the extraneous facts you want but it still remains that this is an ill begotten war and the Bush made a mess of it.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.
I'm asking you to be more clear in your replies. Your words say one thing, and when I comment on them, your reply states that "when I said ____, I was referring to ____, of course", as if I could read your mind. I'm simply readig your words and replying to them. The fact that we are having this conversation at all SHOULD clue you in to the fact that, indeed, I DON'T know what you mean. And you say I'm the "unintelligent" one ::) Are you claiming to know what it is that I mean when I say something?
You view my points as pedantic, that I've "gone bananas" over them, that they are insignificant in the "grand scope of things", and fail to be able to understand WHY these points are significant. It's the same with me. I can't understand how you miss it...it's as plain as the nose on your face....except to you.
Your view is that we made bad decisions in going to war, mine is that we made the exact right decision. I am the type of person who believes you ask a child to do something, and if they don't do it, you explain the consequences, ask once again after that, and if that something is not done, you mete out the consequences previously laid out.
This was done with Sadaam.
You think differently.
This was done over a course of years, and Sadaam continued to act in a manner designed to provoke a response. Bush 1 acted. Clinton acted. Bush 2 acted. In each case, Sadaam was made aware of possible consequences. In each case, he made a choice to demonstrate his willingness to see if the consequences would be dealt.
You seem intent on proving that Bush acted irresponsibly in going to war. I see that the information available at that time made it clear that a decision needed to be made about Sadaam. You are using hindsight when trying to argue against that information, and have claimed that everyone's intel said they might have WMD's. To be precise, all reports and opinions given at that time, and in the past, said that he DID have WMD's. Mr Blix, the man you state as saying Iraq didn't have WMD's, in fact, did NOT say such things when the U.S. went to war. At THAT time they had found items that may or may not have led to bigger things, but he wasn't saying that Iraq did NOT have WMD's.
The only thing that you have to bolster your argument about there not being WMD's in Iraq is opinion at that time. And in Bush's OPINION, it was necessary to act in Iraq. In the light of how Sadaam acted in the past, what his actions were in the past, and the potential for future actions, a decision was made probably based primarily on those three points. While you don't think it was right, many think differently than you, and agree that it was the right thing to do. As a welcome SIDE-EFFECT, the Iraqi people have been freed from the rule of a maniacal dictator.
You are simply more willing to believe things from people I find to be utterly untrustworthy. You are simply more willing to pass over the underhanded dealings discovered unless you feel you can tag the U.S. with that same accusation. Your indignation shines through loud and clear when it concerns the U.S. I don't read the same vitriol when you are referring to any other country.
You're throwing out baseless claims with nothing to back them up, and are claiming I'm doing the same. While clearly biased, I've given you things to look at regarding my "outrageous" claims. You post lies, act as if you uttering them makes them fact, and hide behind a "I'm just showing you what you're doing" defense. You're devolving into childish tactics and an "I know you are but what am I" mentality.
I've become "unintelligent" only from reading your tripe. Just say what you mean...you want to call me dumb. It's ok. I've got a thicker skin than Dexter...I can handle it, as it's just your opinion. Just one more thing you and I disagree about.
-
[quoteYou can try to find all the extraneous facts you want but it still remains that this is an ill begotten war and the Bush made a mess of it.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.
I'm asking you to be more clear in your replies. Your words say one thing, and when I comment on them, your reply states that "when I said ____, I was referring to ____, of course", as if I could read your mind.
You should try to read what I say and not desperately try to find something in my replies that you can make fun of. It's almost like you deliberately misread my replies. For instance when I say Hans Blix couldn't find anything and in return Colin Powell says the stuff was moved, you triumphantly come up with some link "proving" that stuff was moved after the war. How on earth does after the war have something to do with before the war?
Bush went into this war ill prepared. Don't act like waiting a few months or maybe even a few years longer would have mattered. If you read the Duelfer report (which you seem fond of quoting from) it clearly states Saddam was not a threat and would not have been in the foreseeable future. It's pretty clear that Bush (and partners) only thought about invading Iraq and not about keeping Iraq stable. They went in, got rid of Saddam and said "OK the war is over". Then the mess really started. How is it not clear that that was a part of bad planning?
Hans Blix DID say there were no WMD (where the US said they would be) and that he thought the US intelligence was crap since the part he got was proven to be crap. How hard is it to find these quotes from Blix (in fact I gave links to these quotes)? How can you not remember the UN hearings on these matters when you are apparently so interested in this?
I'm not contending if it is a good idea to go to war with Iraq (do not try to pin the "you're for us or against us" crap on me) All I'm saying is that the war was rushed and the unfolding of events shows the world was right and Bush was wrong. For instance terrorism is at an all time high right now, the police force is set up in way that is almost sure to cause corruption. How hard is it to see these things? I admit it is in hindsight, but if someone plans these things ahead they don't go so awfully wrong.
I'm not believing things from people who are untrustworthy. Where the hell do I say that. I believe what I saw Hans Blix say on television. I hear from my nephew, see on the television and read in the newspapers what a mess it is in Iraq and how much trouble the US has to keep a country that basically should be happy to be freed under control. I see how our military is suffering from the poor way Bush is handling this war. I do not trust Bush no.
I trust myself since I have seen these events unfold. I get the strong feeling that you never were interested in this whole thing before and so you know nothing of how it all went. All your information seems to be coming from FOX news headlines or something. Or maybe even from google searches (with google you can "prove" every point right or wrong. But then the proof itself is usually crap).
I'm indeed claiming you come up with daft accusations that should somehow show you are right. You say there were surely WMD in Iraq (false) You say France and Russians defied the UN sanctions (false and has no bearing on the matter), You say Iraq bought conventional weapons during the sanctions (cannot check validity, but it doesn't have any bearing on the matter) I say one thing (Cheney is on the take) to provoke you and you immediately pick that up. Why can't you understand that your own false accusations are just as lame? How hard is it to see that all that nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand?
You claimed I called you uninformed so I correct that view to say that you are more like unintelligent since you cannot seem to be able to pick up on some very simple facts. You quote lines from a report that basically disproves your case and you try to use it to prove your case. Is that clever? In fact it shows you are unable to understand things for yourself and you can only copy headlines. Headlines are intended to draw viewers/readers they are almost by default wrong in what they say.
-
ou should try to read what I say and not desperately try to find something in my replies that you can make fun of. It's almost like you deliberately misread my replies.
I'll have to inform you on your own words, as well, I guess. I'll even quote them so you can read what you say, then let you explain how I was "deliberately misreading your replies"
ps So I don't need to waste any more of my time please be so kind as to use the Claim vs Fact database (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702) (or even Google) before coming out with more unsubstanciated claims. They have some really interesting Iraq items. Thanks!
My reply directly under this little bit was specific to your claim that we are wasting your time, in fact, I (again ::) )quoted your exact words in order to show that was the part to which I was referring to. When my reply focused specifically on "wasting time", you responded
Ok so now you are wasting my time too. Your reply is not based on the original statement. So in fact your reply is of no use, but I'll help you explain a bit further.
I was replying to TA pilot's statement that "they" KNEW there were WMD in Iraq in 1998. This is not a political issue (at least it isn't for me, but I'll concede that for TA Pilot it indeed seems to be a political issue). It's about facts and being able to use simple logic.
It should be apparent after reading my reply that you would understand that I was commenting on you requesting that we use your (COMPLETELY biased) source, but you aren't concerning yourself with such tricky subjects as "reading what was said"
To another of your posts. Prior to this, I had posted a link stating that, while under sanctions, Iraq had been sold weapons. None specific, but weapons, nonetheless
Even if Iraq had these WMD than it still was not a threat to the US. However Hans Blix demonstrated that US intelligence didn't know anything so even before the war it was quite obvious (to the worl outside the US) that there most likely was no WMD threat at all.
I find that UN scam a pathetic point yes. It doesn't have anything to do with the war. The only thing I can see is a minor case when you look at it from a fight against terrorism perspective. Saddam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions. Did you actually read the Duelffer report? Or did you just take a line from the abstract that sounded nice to you? If you read the whole thing then you see it states that Saddam's WMD program was completely dead (and in fact on most counts even pathetic while it was running). The only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.
My reply was about your response that Sadaam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions. All throughout your response, EXCEPT when referring to the point I initially addressed, you used the phrase WMD's. You sought fit to amend your response to I meant WMD of course
That's fine. It then makes your point that Sadaam didn't buy any weapons during the sanctions untrue yet again. Whatever way you want it, I don't care, as he DID get weapons during the sanctions, and it is as yet still unclear what exactly they were, so they may quite well be WMD's.
From your own words, you've saidYou should try to read what I say and not desperately try to find something in my replies that you can make fun of. It's almost like you deliberately misread my replies. For instance when I say Hans Blix couldn't find anything and in return Colin Powell says the stuff was moved, you triumphantly come up with some link "proving" that stuff was moved after the war. How after the war have something to do with before the war?
nothing was done to make fun of you, I'm simply replying to the words you post. It's funny, you started off "looking at this mathematically (logically)" and the more you get into it, the more incensed and illogical you become. When I'm trying to make fun of something, brother, you'll know it. I show a link where things were moved. I show a link that shows a mobile weapons lab, I show a link of sanctions violations giving Iraq weapons, and the best that can be done is to state that my link s are from biased sources (from other biased sources), and that these were reported on after the war.
You continue to flail away at "Hans Blix said there were no WMD's in Iraq". I've tried to temper your enthusiasm for this report, while you continue to prattle on about interviews he gave AFTER the war started. Sorry to use your own words yet again, but "How after the war have something to do with before the war?"
I'm not working to lamely twist your words, you just are saying the same things I am, but don't want to connect the dots and how it relates to the warThe only thing they could find was that he still had intentions to startup his program after the sanctions were lifted. That's rather weak if you ask me.
The sanctions were for disarmament by Sadaam. Sadaam's actions were to invite suspicion that he indeed was NOT doing so. Sadaam's actions invited belief that it could not be known whether or not he was telling the truth or not. Hans Blix' own opinion was that Sadaam was making it difficult to inspect, and was making it impossible to know for sure that Sadaam did or did not possess WMD's. The "smoking Blix" you point to was from an interview he gave after the war had started. Blix obviously wanted to inspect more, Sadaam's actions invited a suspension of the inspections and action to remove him.
Especially after the "proof" your intelligence agency gave was so obviously shown to be flawed (Hans Blixx could find nothing at the sites where the CIA claimed the WMD might be found)
and yet Blix wanted to continue to search, because he himself could not say with certainty that Sadaam had shown himself to be in compliance with the resolutions
I'm sure you'll find this to be a twisting of your words, butI'll have to continue to believe they have WMD's, since I'm not 100% sure they DON'T.
Sure, it means I'll have all my life to continue to claim they have WMD's, because they haven't found them yet, but until you can prove a negative, I'll be right (like Cooter says, "at least in my mind")
That's a perfectly valid statement. In fact, I myself belief there is a chance that WMD will still be found or that there will be evidence that they were moved to Syria (or something)
when you stated that you believe there is a chance that evidence will show they were moved to Syria (or something), I thought when there actually might be something to bolster your belief, you might have something to say other than It says they have proof that trucks moved "things" to Syria. Wow ::)
I get to hear daily how we should be doing something NOW about everyone else developing nuclear weapons. I also get to read about how Hans Blix found information on Iraq, and the possibility of them obtaining nuclear weapons....regarding all of these things, we are asked to believe that a dictator (like Sadaam) is telling us the truth, and whether or not we should do anything about it. The response has been "act now, act now, act now", and you find no problem with waiting to act against Sadaam. The actions of the President have been to act exactly as Kerry requested him to do, but now that we are in an election year, Bush is wrong, dead wrong. You HAVE stated that Kerry would be considered right-wing in your country, so I DO have faith that you would be decrying the fact that Kerry acted wrongly too, but in stating your beliefs about WMD's, you argue vehemently against your beliefs when items are brought up.
I don't think you believe your own words, and I believe you have such bitterness towards the U.S. for something OTHER than this war, and this has given you an opportunity to vent it Somehow you're claiming I'm twising your words. I think it's more a case of you don't know what you believe entirely, other than the U.S. is bad.
-
nevermind
-
nevermind
Exactly! How is someone supposed to respond to a post like that. I read about a quarter of it, and that's good for me... ;)
-
highly unlikely, since they've never existed in the first place.
We were looking for the weapons of banned destruction(ist). Since the ban has faded away, the Syrians and Russians came by and picked up whatever wasn't paid for.
;D
-
damn repo men are everywhere >:(
-
(sound of penny dropping)
i finally made the connection. drewkaree and nerf hoffelwaffle are one and the same!! just look at the pic under nerfs banner. now look at drews avatar. in the right kind of light they could be identical twins!!
topical quote: ' we were identical twins. only sometimes he seemed more identical than i'- marty feldman (referring to michael york in 'the very last remake of beau geste').
;D
-
are you referring to the giant wafflehead? That's all I could surmise, but DANG that's funny on the timing if that's the case!
Oh, and Nerf is the write-in of choice ;)