artistcalledian 0 #26 October 18, 2005 QuoteWendy, you know how those Europeans are, the English and French might as well be the same country considering how in sync they are on most matters. i'm shocked... we have showers regular, unlike the smelly french how dare you say we're the same ________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
artistcalledian 0 #27 October 18, 2005 lets face it... Iraq is in serious danger of spiralling out of control into all out civil war soon, i don't think American or British troops will be able to stop it when it does happen Both our governments need to pull out the troops and let them sort it out themselves NOW... not when another 500 American troops are killed by suicide bombers at road blocks, right now !________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #28 October 18, 2005 No no, you misread me. I'm not saying that Saddam's unwillingness to let inspectors waltz in is the proof that WMDs were there. The proof lies in the proven usage of chemical weapons against the Kurds on multiple occasions, the fact that locations were found with WMD producing equipment, just surprisingly no WMDs, the fact that the fricken US even gave weapon support to Iraq in the 70's, etc. Plus in the last few years we've found shells with chemical residue and other similar things. There's also enough satelite footage of Iraqi troops moving mass quantities of "supplies" out of compounds and such while UN inspectors were being heavily delayed. Gee, think there might be a little more than weather balloons there? So that's my support, not the fact that Saddam was flipping off the world for over a decade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #29 October 18, 2005 From the Man-on-the-Street interview in the Onion: "This would be a major problem for the president if anybody cared anymore about whether or not the things he did were fake." Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #30 October 18, 2005 QuoteI think it's time to change to a more plausible narrative. Imaginary WMD's are so 2003! "Freeing the people of Iraq" is the latest rationale. Hey, I've been saying from the beginning that WMDs wasn't the best reason to go in and that it was the people, creating a stable govt in the region, etc. that were the right and most important reasons. QuoteAre you talking about your faith in WMD's being there or something else? No, I was just saying that people who say Bush said there were WMDs there soley based on prayer or whatever is completely wrong. There is evidence that they were there. QuoteYep! We were turning the corner in 2003, victory was certain in 2004, the insurgeny was in its last throes in 2005 . . . at this rate we will be winning for another decade. Thousands of US troops will die, of course, but who cares? We're WINNING! I never agreed with Bush's victory speech on the carrier or Cheney's claim that the insurgency is in its last throes, but by looking at all the positive things in Iraq, we are winning. Loss of life does not equal losing. QuoteHmm. When the civil war starts, which side will we be on? It has started already. We're on the govt's side and merely need to help create a stable govt w/ a reliable military/police force...then we can leave. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #31 October 18, 2005 See my reply to sudsy. And what!!??, the earth isn't flat! You gotta be shitting me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #32 October 18, 2005 Quote I find it hard to conceive that you actually believe this. Remember Powell's "Mobile WMD labs" at the UN presentation, that turned out to be weather balloon base stations? See reply to Sudsy. QuoteHa ha. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" speech? See reply to bill. QuoteWho's mentioned Roberts? I refer to the latest fiasco where even his own party is against her. Yeah sorry, for some reason I just assumed Roberts. The whole religion thing was just to please the religious right, so who cares? Are you against her b/c she said she'd support pro-life? Gee, what a surprise. QuoteYou missed the deficit. What's your excuse for record breaking deficits for years, reduced government revenues, and increased government spending? Ever seen a country not in deficit during wartime and multiple natural disasters? And of course this would all be solved by 60% taxes, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #33 October 18, 2005 QuoteSo that's my support, not the fact that Saddam was flipping off the world for over a decade. That's it? A bunch of circumstantial evidence makes it obvious to you that there were WMD's? Dude, just take a moment to consider alternative possibilities for what you just enumerated. And I'm not talking about far out stuff like they were moving stacks of Martha Stewart merchandise... but just a quick consideration. For example, would you want your enemies to know precisely your inventory and locations of conventional munitions? What would you do if you had inspectors coming to those sites looking for something completely different, but could make notes on whatever they saw? I'm not at all saying this is what went down -- heck, I haven't researched and confirmed your allegation to begin with -- but it just takes a moment of thought to consider the possibility. The fact is that we don't know. And we, the consumers of the massive amounts of misinformation (both intentional and unintentional) that we're fed, are the last ones who will be able to determine what scenario was more likely. There *were* a group of folks who were probably most qualified to do so, you know. Any guesses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
artistcalledian 0 #34 October 18, 2005 why is it ok for us to have WMD's, yet its not for other countries? its like satying "hey, we can have them because we trust ourselves, but we don't trust you so we'll not let you have them" do as i say, not as i do________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #35 October 18, 2005 QuoteQuote I find it hard to conceive that you actually believe this. Remember Powell's "Mobile WMD labs" at the UN presentation, that turned out to be weather balloon base stations? See reply to Sudsy. QuoteHa ha. Remember the "Mission Accomplished" speech? See reply to bill. QuoteWho's mentioned Roberts? I refer to the latest fiasco where even his own party is against her. Yeah sorry, for some reason I just assumed Roberts. The whole religion thing was just to please the religious right, so who cares? Are you against her b/c she said she'd support pro-life? Gee, what a surprise. QuoteYou missed the deficit. What's your excuse for record breaking deficits for years, reduced government revenues, and increased government spending? Ever seen a country not in deficit during wartime and multiple natural disasters? And of course this would all be solved by 60% taxes, right? The deficit long pre-dated the latest round of hurricanes, and this "war" is Bush's own choice. The WMDs didn't exist. All the inspectors, both UN and CIA, have reported that there was NO active WMD program, just faith-based analysis of the intel. I take it from your reply that you have not actually looked at the details of the deficit. I haven't stated any opinion on Harriet, just observed that the nomination has turned into a typical Bush clusterf^ck.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #36 October 18, 2005 QuoteHey, I've been saying from the beginning that WMDs wasn't the best reason to go in and that it was the people, creating a stable govt in the region, etc. that were the right and most important reasons. Two things:Is that how it was sold to the American people?Political arguments aside, is that a legal reason, under international law, to invade a sovereign nation?If the answer to either of these questions is, "No," then how do you still justify your position (without being guilty of double-standards or hypocrisy)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #37 October 18, 2005 >I'm not saying that Saddam's unwillingness to let inspectors waltz in >is the proof that WMDs were there. He WAS willing to let inspectors walk in. From Blix's final report in Jan 2003: "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt." So Saddam allowed inspectors in everywhere they asked to go, and except for one case, access was immediate. Hardly "keeping inspectors out." > The proof lies in the proven usage of chemical weapons against the > Kurds on multiple occasions . . . Oh, agreed. He had them at one point. Heck, we kept the receipts! But since such weapons have shelf lives, and he wasn't producing more of the stuff, that doesn't mean much in terms of whether he had them in 2003. >the fact that locations were found with WMD producing equipment. . . Nope. Those turned out to be mistakes or lies, depending on what you believe. From The Observer: ------------------------------ A BRITISH inquiry into two trailers found in northern Iraq has found they are not mobile germ warfare labs, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, the Observer newspaper has reported. The London-based weekly newspaper said the conclusion by biological weapons experts was an embarrassment for Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has claimed the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein. A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who examined the trailers in Iraq, told the Observer: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." -------------------------------- >Gee, think there might be a little more than weather balloons there? Based on the fact that only weather balloon equipment was found, and NO (that's zero, zip, nada) WMD stockpiles or factories were found? Nope. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #38 October 18, 2005 QuoteWMDs were obviously there, and obviously moved before we could get in We're winning the war, Of course it's Bush's fault that some idiot in the Justice Dept dropped the ball. Everything is his fault after all. Dude! Back away from the crack pipe!!! I'ts destroying your capacity for rational thought.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,076 #39 October 18, 2005 >Dude! Back away from the crack pipe!!! I'ts destroying your capacity >for rational thought. Your one warning. Attack the subject, not the poster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Botellines 0 #40 October 18, 2005 QuoteHey, I've been saying from the beginning that WMDs wasn't the best reason to go in and that it was the people, creating a stable govt in the region, etc. that were the right and most important reasons. You only need one reason to go to war. But you have to make damn sure that it is an excelent reason. The fact that all of the sudden, there is many reason to go to war with one country and they change their relative importance with time to accomodate someone´s agenda, points out that all those reason where taken into consideration after the decision to go to war was taken. It only takes a bit of critical thinking to suspect foul play. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #41 October 18, 2005 FYI, the soldiers that were there say they weren't told what they could/couldn't ask.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,076 #42 October 18, 2005 >FYI, the soldiers that were there say they weren't told what they >could/couldn't ask. So I stand corrected. There _are_ people who actually think this wasn't scripted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #43 October 19, 2005 Quote>FYI, the soldiers that were there say they weren't told what they >could/couldn't ask. So I stand corrected. There _are_ people who actually think this wasn't scripted. Scripted, no. Rehearsed, sort of. General layout or framework to make use of the time, definitely. Seriously, the President and his staff weren't too worried about who he might be talking with: soldiers in his army. It was already a friendly audience.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #44 October 19, 2005 and I am sure the soldiers that were there were carefully selected to ensure political alliances. Further, I am sure they got the speech that for their careers in tge military, or even the quality of the remainder of their enlistment, it would be wise not to touch on any sensitive subjects.... If you think that didn't happen, well naivite comes to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #45 October 20, 2005 Quote why is it ok for us to have WMD's, yet its not for other countries? Iraq was specifically not supposed to have WMDs. It was a condition of the cease fire of 1991. If Saddam didn't want to be under that condition, he shouldn't have lost the war. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites IanHarrop 42 #46 October 20, 2005 Quotewhy is it ok for us to have WMD's, yet its not for other countries? its like satying "hey, we can have them because we trust ourselves, but we don't trust you so we'll not let you have them" do as i say, not as i do ding ! ding ! ding ! we have a winner"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #47 October 20, 2005 Quotewhy is it ok for us to have WMD's, yet its not for other countries? its like satying "hey, we can have them because we trust ourselves, but we don't trust you so we'll not let you have them" do as i say, not as i do Here some perspective (relating to nuclear weapons): In 1964, there were five self-declared nuclear powers in the world: USA, USSR, UK, France and China. Around that time, it was predicted that between 20 and 30 countries would acquire nuclear technology in the next ten years. Ireland put forward the resolution in the UN (back when it had meaning) calling on all states to conlude an international agreement that would ban the acquisition and transfer of nuclear weapons. This was to provide a universal assurance that if peaceful applications of nuclear technology were to be developed, there would be a tangible guarantee that it would not be built into military applications. 43 countries were original parties to the NPT (including USA, USSR and UK), entered into force in 1970. Today, only Pakistan, India, Israel and DPRK are the only counties not signed to the agreement. The existence of the treaty has some obvious security benefits, for those with, and without nuclear weapons.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gawain 0 #48 October 21, 2005 Quoteand I am sure the soldiers that were there were carefully selected to ensure political alliances. Further, I am sure they got the speech that for their careers in tge military, or even the quality of the remainder of their enlistment, it would be wise not to touch on any sensitive subjects.... If you think that didn't happen, well naivite comes to mind. From the Army Times: The 10 American soldiers were identified as experts on the three topics the President wanted to talk about: security in Iraq, security for the weekend referendum and the training of Iraqi troops. Here's what happened, from the horse's mouth in Tikrit: "We specifically brought these guys together because they're the ones who are working day to day alongside Iraqi army units," said Major Rich Goldenberg, the 42nd Infantry Division public affairs officer who coordinated the Tikrit side of the event. ... While the general areas for discussion were known in advance, MSG Lombardo said the specific questions were not. She said the timing of the IV interview made it obious to the soldiers that their CiC wanted an assessment of conditions for the Oct. 15 referendum on the constitution. ----------- What it boils down to is that they were simply talking to the officers and NCOs to let them know what to expect. Most soldiers I know, regardless of political affiliation, know that their Commander in Chief is who he is. The army isn't chock-full-of-geniuses, but most know to respect the rank and conduct themselves according to a code of conduct.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites artistcalledian 0 #49 October 21, 2005 i think the only nation so far to have used nuclear weapons on people is....erm........ you so, i think its YOU who should have WMD's taken off you, you've proved you can't be trusted not to use them ________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #50 October 21, 2005 Seems like we should count on your expertise about the facts, history, and circumstances in which these were used to make a sound opinion!!! That's right UK has centuries of examplary and immaculate human rights showmanship. We SHALL trust the UK.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,076 #39 October 18, 2005 >Dude! Back away from the crack pipe!!! I'ts destroying your capacity >for rational thought. Your one warning. Attack the subject, not the poster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #40 October 18, 2005 QuoteHey, I've been saying from the beginning that WMDs wasn't the best reason to go in and that it was the people, creating a stable govt in the region, etc. that were the right and most important reasons. You only need one reason to go to war. But you have to make damn sure that it is an excelent reason. The fact that all of the sudden, there is many reason to go to war with one country and they change their relative importance with time to accomodate someone´s agenda, points out that all those reason where taken into consideration after the decision to go to war was taken. It only takes a bit of critical thinking to suspect foul play. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #41 October 18, 2005 FYI, the soldiers that were there say they weren't told what they could/couldn't ask.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #42 October 18, 2005 >FYI, the soldiers that were there say they weren't told what they >could/couldn't ask. So I stand corrected. There _are_ people who actually think this wasn't scripted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #43 October 19, 2005 Quote>FYI, the soldiers that were there say they weren't told what they >could/couldn't ask. So I stand corrected. There _are_ people who actually think this wasn't scripted. Scripted, no. Rehearsed, sort of. General layout or framework to make use of the time, definitely. Seriously, the President and his staff weren't too worried about who he might be talking with: soldiers in his army. It was already a friendly audience.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #44 October 19, 2005 and I am sure the soldiers that were there were carefully selected to ensure political alliances. Further, I am sure they got the speech that for their careers in tge military, or even the quality of the remainder of their enlistment, it would be wise not to touch on any sensitive subjects.... If you think that didn't happen, well naivite comes to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #45 October 20, 2005 Quote why is it ok for us to have WMD's, yet its not for other countries? Iraq was specifically not supposed to have WMDs. It was a condition of the cease fire of 1991. If Saddam didn't want to be under that condition, he shouldn't have lost the war. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IanHarrop 42 #46 October 20, 2005 Quotewhy is it ok for us to have WMD's, yet its not for other countries? its like satying "hey, we can have them because we trust ourselves, but we don't trust you so we'll not let you have them" do as i say, not as i do ding ! ding ! ding ! we have a winner"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #47 October 20, 2005 Quotewhy is it ok for us to have WMD's, yet its not for other countries? its like satying "hey, we can have them because we trust ourselves, but we don't trust you so we'll not let you have them" do as i say, not as i do Here some perspective (relating to nuclear weapons): In 1964, there were five self-declared nuclear powers in the world: USA, USSR, UK, France and China. Around that time, it was predicted that between 20 and 30 countries would acquire nuclear technology in the next ten years. Ireland put forward the resolution in the UN (back when it had meaning) calling on all states to conlude an international agreement that would ban the acquisition and transfer of nuclear weapons. This was to provide a universal assurance that if peaceful applications of nuclear technology were to be developed, there would be a tangible guarantee that it would not be built into military applications. 43 countries were original parties to the NPT (including USA, USSR and UK), entered into force in 1970. Today, only Pakistan, India, Israel and DPRK are the only counties not signed to the agreement. The existence of the treaty has some obvious security benefits, for those with, and without nuclear weapons.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #48 October 21, 2005 Quoteand I am sure the soldiers that were there were carefully selected to ensure political alliances. Further, I am sure they got the speech that for their careers in tge military, or even the quality of the remainder of their enlistment, it would be wise not to touch on any sensitive subjects.... If you think that didn't happen, well naivite comes to mind. From the Army Times: The 10 American soldiers were identified as experts on the three topics the President wanted to talk about: security in Iraq, security for the weekend referendum and the training of Iraqi troops. Here's what happened, from the horse's mouth in Tikrit: "We specifically brought these guys together because they're the ones who are working day to day alongside Iraqi army units," said Major Rich Goldenberg, the 42nd Infantry Division public affairs officer who coordinated the Tikrit side of the event. ... While the general areas for discussion were known in advance, MSG Lombardo said the specific questions were not. She said the timing of the IV interview made it obious to the soldiers that their CiC wanted an assessment of conditions for the Oct. 15 referendum on the constitution. ----------- What it boils down to is that they were simply talking to the officers and NCOs to let them know what to expect. Most soldiers I know, regardless of political affiliation, know that their Commander in Chief is who he is. The army isn't chock-full-of-geniuses, but most know to respect the rank and conduct themselves according to a code of conduct.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
artistcalledian 0 #49 October 21, 2005 i think the only nation so far to have used nuclear weapons on people is....erm........ you so, i think its YOU who should have WMD's taken off you, you've proved you can't be trusted not to use them ________________________________________ drive it like you stole it and f*ck the police Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wopelao 0 #50 October 21, 2005 Seems like we should count on your expertise about the facts, history, and circumstances in which these were used to make a sound opinion!!! That's right UK has centuries of examplary and immaculate human rights showmanship. We SHALL trust the UK.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
