I get a news email daily from military.com ... they lead off with this article today.

For anyone who cares to try, I'll write my nick on a bag of sugar, hide it on one of my trips around Texas, and let them search for it...about the same as trying to find a quantity of botulinus toxin sufficient to depopulate this entire country in Iraq. :headwall:

Looking less likely that they will find them every day.

"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."

George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if you have the satellite photos, you should be able to find the facilities..duh..

Hint: latitude and longitude usually are in the lower right hand corner. Latitude is a parallel like the equator measured noreth and south and longitude is a meridian measured east and west......



:nyanya:

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

George W. Bush
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok Torone, but try that with thousands of tons of sugar and I bet you I could find it



:biglaugh:

sarettah, don't cloud the issue with relevant facts.

Where is Al Hague when you need him. "References to WMD are now inoperative. We take you now to eeeeeeeee-villlllllllll dicktater ... "

Speaking of relevant facts, what about the three Iraqi ships that are (I assume) still station-keeping in the middle of nowhere?

we know this because these things were either declared to previous weapons inspectors and/or UN or they were discovered by UN weapons inspectors.
:rolleyes:

What is scary is that literally everyone knows that Husein HAD WMD's. He admitted it. He used them against Iran and the Kurds. Put aside the Dem/Lib/CP propaganda and wonder instead...Who the HELL has them or knows where they are? Is the proof going to be a mushroom cloud or a depopulated city?

For that matter, why does no one remember that WMD's were not the only reason we struck Iraq? Information out of other inimical countries seems to support the ties between Hussein and terrorism. Are Liberal memories so short that 9/11 is back to being just an emergency number? Or is it a matter of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'?

BTW, your favorite news source, the Communist News Network, reported that Iraq fired a missile at our headquarters in Kuwait some time before we started our attack. That would mean that he fired first...

And so Bush is supposed to take the rap for the UN...

Sarettah,

One thing's for sure. Satellite technology and data analysis will go through another round of huge improvements after this.

Bush and many of us may have been wrong about Saddam having WMDs. Saddam may have pulled his final deception. Then again, he's still out there somewhere. So is Osama. "America's Most Wanted" list is hot at the top. The life of these two men could be a further huge influence on American politics. Imagine Osama or Saddam pulling off a terrorist or coupist caper on the eve of election night or imagine Osama or Saddam being caught on the eve of election night.

no... i think Bush is supposed to take the rap for this because instead of pointing out repeatedly what Saddam had... he just chanted again and again "Saddam MUST dissarm". the general tone and suggestion in almost every speach Bush made was about "dissarming Saddam Hussein". Saddam refused to cooperate and he was attacked.

its not unreasonable after a war for people to expect results and to expect to see "dissarmorment".

I think it is unreasonable for people to overlook the known facts, chronology and history of weapons inspectors in Iraq, Iraqs declarations, Iraqs deception, Iraqs use of chemical weapons and the known inventories of weapons unaccounted for for 12 years and try to make the case (more appropriately - imply) that there NEVER was anything there. thats crazy.

he had lots of shit.
he hid lots of shit
he used lots of shit
he killed lots of people with his shit
lots of his shit was discovered by weapons inspectors that was shit he said he did not have.
he had lots of shit that he refused to account for - even in his final declaration following 1441.

but hey, thats just politics.

Hillary says she was shocked, surprised and hurt that Bill cheated on her with Monica - what else can she say? she wants to be the next President of the USA.

its all politics.

the best bullshitter wins.





Last edited by JR at Jun 11 2003, 02:13 AM

and futher... the UN did not decide to attack Iraq. Bush did. "Coalition" or not - it happened outside of the law. its not unreasonable for the world to ask him to be accountable for the results.

Jr,
:groucho: :groucho: :groucho: :groucho:

:salute: :salute: :salute: :salute:

and futher... the UN did not decide to attack Iraq. Bush did. "Coalition" or not - it happened outside of the law. its not unreasonable for the world to ask him to be accountable for the results.[/b][/quote]
What law? I think that you people sometimes indulge in a lot of wishful thinking. Please post the law that was broken and your source...The United States is a sovereign country which is responsible for its' own defense. It is also the de facto military arm of the UN. We enforced something like 17 or 18 UN resolutions by invading Iraq. Congress gave Bush the authority to do so not once, but twice. I repeat, What law?

Iraq was not a soveriegn nation?

how do you prove that Iraq was a direct threat to the USA? a threat so grave that they had to be invaded and occupied and their leaders and family members killed.

dont get me wrong. i am not saying it was the wrong thing to do. i am saying that all arguments are strong and a decision had to be made that was almost arbitrary.

all thats left is to for everyone to continue to play politics and use the situation for their own political gain or that of their party. thats whats happening. i think that its a massive mistake to start the "where are the WMD's Mr Bush" rhetoric as a political strategy because it assumes several things

1) that most people were fooled by the administration - which is not true
2) that people are against the war - which is not true
3) that most people can be swayed in their opinions - which is not happening.

its something that i think will fail because its based on a simple premise that we are stupid, Bush is smart, Bush conned us... and for all that to be true... we have to forget about 12 years of reality, weapons inspectors reports, declarations to the UN and flat out genocide that shows otherwise.

Iraq was not a soveriegn nation?

how do you prove that Iraq was a direct threat to the USA? a threat so grave that they had to be invaded and occupied and their leaders and family members killed.[/b][/quote]
"Information out of other inimical countries seems to support the ties between Hussein and terrorism. Are Liberal memories so short that 9/11 is back to being just an emergency number? Or is it a matter of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'?"

I think that Saddam's own words and actions as well as the evidence at Salman Pak (sp?) would convince REASONABLE people. Of course, there is also the FACTS that he was paying suicide bombers and that he put out a contract on Bush 41.

I have, until now, refrained from mentioning the fact that Clinton thought him to be a serious threat; or that the same people now defending Hussein were all for attacking him when Clinton was in office.

Jr, you KNOW all this...are you really an idiot; or are you just stirring shit for the fun of it?

the ties between Saddam Hussein and Terrorism were weak at best. Really weak. The support between Saudi Arabia and other "allies" is/was pretty strong.

whats the connection between 9/11 and Iraq? Saudi Arabia supports terrorism and only recently began to do something about it.

Why not Saudi Arabia if it was about national defense and fighting terrorism? I think thats a losing argument too. Where did the 9/11 hijackers come from?

I dont think that one argument is better than the other when it comes to terrorism/wmd's and Iraq.

i mean that the ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorism were significantly weaker than countries we consider allies in the region.

I repeat my question. If you refuse to answer it, that is the Liberal way...

"Jr, you KNOW all this...are you really an idiot; or are you just stirring shit for the fun of it?'

:biglaugh:

Uh...prove it to whom ?

You ? Me ? Ain't ever going to happen, we will get the information the government wants us to have...nothing more.

Sadam was taken out because it was in the best interest of the US (Or what the current Administration perceived to be)

WMD - I would feel a lot better if they did find them, my belief is they never will - They went out of Iraq at the first sign that we were serious about invading. Most likely sold or given to someone that will try and use them against the US.

Looking for them in Iraq is like looking for a 3 dollar whore in a convent.

As far as Bush goes - I see a lot of people giving him credit for things that are just not his doing.

Bush is not shrewd, sly, calculating - He is a fucking dope - Take away the family fortune and this guy could not hold a job flipping burgers.

Everything he has attempted in life has been a failure - trouble is too many dumb assed Americans will continue to vote the party line. It is simply a matter of which party can get the most of their mindless puppets to the polls.

Whenever either party has too much control everyone gets fucked - Our system was set up specifically to avoid what is has become - the checks a balances were put in place so that all sides of every issue would be evaluated, and the result would be what was best for the populace.

Right now there is no balance - the Right has a rubber stamp

Democrats like to credit Clinton for the 90's economic boom, Republicans like to credit Reagen for the 80's boom - both were extremely prosperous and good for the country.

No one ever points out that they were both dealing with opposing party Houses -

Whatever party you vote for President, vote the other for Congress - when there is balance there is prosperity

Uh...prove it to whom ?

You ? Me ? Ain't ever going to happen, we will get the information the government wants us to have...nothing more.

Sadam was taken out because it was in the best interest of the US (Or what the current Administration perceived to be)

WMD - I would feel a lot better if they did find them, my belief is they never will - They went out of Iraq at the first sign that we were serious about invading. Most likely sold or given to someone that will try and use them against the US.

Looking for them in Iraq is like looking for a 3 dollar whore in a convent.

As far as Bush goes - I see a lot of people giving him credit for things that are just not his doing.

Bush is not shrewd, sly, calculating - He is a fucking dope - Take away the family fortune and this guy could not hold a job flipping burgers.

Everything he has attempted in life has been a failure - trouble is too many dumb assed Americans will continue to vote the party line. It is simply a matter of which party can get the most of their mindless puppets to the polls.

Whenever either party has too much control everyone gets fucked - Our system was set up specifically to avoid what is has become - the checks a balances were put in place so that all sides of every issue would be evaluated, and the result would be what was best for the populace.

Right now there is no balance - the Right has a rubber stamp

Democrats like to credit Clinton for the 90's economic boom, Republicans like to credit Reagen for the 80's boom - both were extremely prosperous and good for the country.

No one ever points out that they were both dealing with opposing party Houses -

Whatever party you vote for President, vote the other for Congress - when there is balance there is prosperity[/b][/quote]
so you operate on the same assumptions.

1) Bush is stupid
2) We are all stupid (i.e. "we only know what those really clever people want us to know)

we live in a democratic republic. elections were held. leaders were chosen. you position that the Right "has a rubber stamp" assumes that they can get away with doing something that goes against the popular will of the people.

is that happening?

Torone,

I agree the decision was ultimately made to go to war (which I supported ) based on, exactly as you said, Saddam's words and actions. His behavior has been a thorn in the side of the past four administrations.

If US intelligence was wrong, then the question I think we have to ask is how we can improve it? It was said all along there was no "smoking gun" but rather that the weight of evidence was overwhelming in it's totality. That all the small bits of evidence summed to strong evidence. "There is no smoking gun".

I think Saddam's actions and continual disregard for world political norms caused the evidence that existed to be viewed in that light by many.

If the lesson that must be learned it will be a difficult one. How should the world react to Saddam Hussein's when they appear?

When there is no "smoking gun" you might be wrong in your conclusions and that might be what happened. Maybe not though. It's early and much information is still to be learned.

so you operate on the same assumptions.

1) Bush is stupid
2) We are all stupid (i.e. "we only know what those really clever people want us to know)

we live in a democratic republic. elections were held. leaders were chosen. you position that the Right "has a rubber stamp" assumes that they can get away with doing something that goes against the popular will of the people.

is that happening?[/quote]
JR - yes it happens every day

Sometimes needed - often not

As an example - do you think that the American Public would vote yes to Salary for life for their elected representitives - doubt it highly but it exists

They have done many things that are against the popular opinion of the people

About 90% of the patriot act falls into this category.

And since we are talking about the popular will - Al Gore won the "popular vote"

I am really thankful that Gore was not the president to handle 9/11 - I don't think he has the balls for the job, but there is far too much being done to rob rights from American's under the guise of National Security

I don't like the fact that I can be jailed indefinately without proof, for being suspected of something (like independent thought)

1) Yes I do feel that Bush is stupid
2) I never said everyone was stupid - I said anyone voting the party line is stupid - or too lazy to think (which amounts to about the same thing)

the opposite side to that argument is that we did not vote for it and even though we would not... we dont feel its much of an issue - or we would be more upset about it as a whole than we are.

BUT - its not unpopular with the MAJORITY of people.

BUT... AL Gore LOST THE ELECTION

feel the same way.

What the public believes today, and what the public believes the day after tomorrow, are two very different things.

There are a number of Americans who would still maintain the war was wrong if we'd stumbled upon a cache of weapons the size of New Hampshire.

There are a number of Americans who would still maintain the war was right if a videotape meeting of the Cabinet laughing at the effectiveness of their deception about WMD were played on CNN, MSNBC, and even on FOX.

There's a whole lotta mofos out there in the middle - the majority, IMHO. Some of them will decide it ultimately didn't matter. Some of them will decide they've been lied to. Some will change the channel and watch Jerry Springer.

UNLESS these clowns are stupid enough to mislead a Congressional inquiry, there is no impeachable offense here. What there WILL be is a loss of credibility with some people - and not just the people who fail the Torone/MikeAI litmius test for true Americanism, either. I think that an awful lot of Americans who supported military action in Iraq will be far more skeptical when Rumsfeld talks of Iranian nuclear weapons, just as one example.

How many, and what kind of, consequences that has for the administration, remains to be seen.

T'is true.

Like I said, I hope the 'smoking gun' doesn't turn out to be a mushroom cloud or a depopulated city.