|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jul 2nd, 2003 09:57 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Preecher's hooked on I-mock, Preecher's hooked on I-mock, Preecher's hooked on I-mock, Tee hee. |
|
| Jul 2nd, 2003 09:54 AM | ||
| Zero Signal |
But Max, Vinth is applying for membership to Mensa! That must give him free license to use words in any way he wants because, as you know, he is "teh smarts". May Vinth got a letter from Mensa begging him to join, like the Navy allegedly sent. |
|
| Jul 2nd, 2003 09:47 AM | ||
| mburbank |
" People need to learn what the definition of words are." -Irony McClambake. Coming from the person who has used wrongly words for which there are deffinitions of the the corrective ones aviable bar none, that's pretty iron clad, and speccuulous to boot. |
|
| Jul 2nd, 2003 01:03 AM | ||
| Protoclown |
Quote:
I do agree with the idea though that either way, whether he had the weapons or not, something doesn't add up with how he reacted. He either had them and failed to use them for reasons I can't even fathom, or he had gotten rid of them long ago and was simply being an ass for reasons that I also cannot fathom. But the fact remains that Bush CLEARLY spoke too soon about the WMDs. Even if we DO find them now, it'll be a stroke of luck, not a matter of Bush, Powell, or anyone else having concrete intelligence on them beforehand. We were deceived. And for those of you who don't realize that, I'd like to convince you to trade me a $20 bill for this shiny new nickel I have here that has a unique one-of-a-kind stain on it. A rare collector's item! |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 11:41 PM | ||
| Big Papa Goat | Sure Bush lied, he said that he Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have any complete information as to the whereabouts or existence of these weapons, but he led the American people to believe that he did. Clearly, even if there are WMD's in Iraq, George Bush did not have as good of intelligence about them as he claims, as he has not found them yet. I like what Vinth said about Clinton 'a lie is a lie' Well, its not exactly like a lie is in and of itself that bad, it is the effects that the lie has that determine the mischeif and evil of it. Clintons lie caused a lot of stupid people to get very upset. Bush's lie caused a lot of innocent people to get very dead. | |
| Jul 1st, 2003 11:05 PM | ||
| Spasmolytic |
Quote:
 that's how you get pictures from different angles |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 10:54 PM | ||
| GAsux |
... Well that's just it. What exactly is the ENDS? If the goal is to find and destroy WMD, that goal has not been accomplished. Is the threat of terrorists gaining access to whatever WMDs there may have been any LESS now that Saddam is gone? What if they were in fact moved to Syria? I think that you will find agreement amongst many ME analysts, even those who SUPPORTED the war, that they are of the impression that a strong, overly visible U.S. presence in Iraq will not remain stable long. Each day that passes creates more and more resentment. It's my opinion, of course, but I think its the process we're now in that demonstrates the shortcomings of unilateral action. Sure we could fight the war on our own. But rebuilding is an entirely different set of circumstances. And as it stands, even if five or ten years from now we're successful, we'll have still stirred a great deal of Arab resentment. At least under the GUISE of multinationalism it becomes more difficult to accuse the U.S of being an occupier. As it stands now, we're forced to bear the brunt of the guilt. And while it's all fun and good to sit here and debate it, none of us are paying the price. The people who are really suffering for the stagnation in policy here are the kids on the ground trying to hold on to whatever stability they can. Those guys are being tasked with an almost impossible mission, and I am very confident that there will be no let up in the number of suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and ambushes no matter how many Operation Scorpions we have. The more we invade Iraqi homes under the auspices of peace keeping, the more they will resent us. I was not necessarily oppossed to military intervention in Iraq. I suppose I'm an optomist. I still believe that although none have been found to this point, WMDs do or at least did exist. I can prove it no more than the nay sayers can disprove it so it's really a moot point. But I am not at all fond of the direction the post war efforts have headed. There has already been an unprecedented level of dissension within the administration, and I think it will only get worse as this drags out. Great, we've kicked their ass. Now what? |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 10:29 PM | ||
| Zero Signal |
For Vinth and Preechr, the ends justify the means. Like the Inquisition or the Holocaust.  WMDs or no WMDs. Lies and deception or not. If curing AIDS meant killing every single homosexual on the planet, Vinth would be first in line to beginning the slaughter. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 10:27 PM | ||
| GAsux |
Thanks. Yeah thanks for easing my fears about you because I was really internet worried. I guess. So let me ask you this. Do you also so easily dismiss those within the intelligence community who have said in essence the same thing, although perhaps in a slightly less slanderous way? It's one thing to blow off a message board regular who just doens't like the "man". But what about those within the administration who have made the very same assertions? Are the just childish partisan blowhards too? Do you suppose Dubya's assessment of the situation is more accurate than that of uber geeks and spooks, many of whom have spent their entire lives studying the region? There are an awful lot of folks at State and the intel agencies begging to differ with the presidents assessment. I would venture to assert that many of these folks are educated, expereinced people who have much more at stake than does the average message boarder. Why would they risk their entire careers to suggest that perhaps the administrations handling of the situation is less than ideal? |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 10:15 PM | ||
| Preechr |
You don't know whether I would criticize Bush on any other issue because I've not really addressed any other topics. I didn't vote for the guy last time, and I won't next time... though that's beside the point. I'm telling you that because you obviously don't know it, and I'm wanting to put your fears to rest... I'd also like to point out that my use of the word partisan twice may be redundant, but it's accurate. I'd challenge you to make the same kind of distinction I just did. The highlight of the Bush administration so far has been the handling of Iraq. His response to 9/11 won't be remembered, as it was sorta irrelevant. Attempts to steal his thunder in Iraq will continue to be more and more fruitless, and the latest futile, pathetic attacks ("He Lied!") are a sure sign of an anti-Bush zealot. I stand by my characterization. ...and do look up "partisan." It's a great word to throw around at parties. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 10:01 PM | ||
| GAsux |
Entertianing.... I find it ironic that you like to throw around terms like "partisan" to everyone who is not fond of the current administration. I'll have to double check my dictionary because perhaps I'm a little unclear as to the meaning of the word. If you are using "partisan" as a deragautory term, wouldn't one who incessantly defends the administration be just as guilty of that very same partisanship? And I also suppose that anyone who thinks perhaps military intervention in Iraq was unjust must also obviously be completely anti-Bush. I suppose it makes your fantasy a little more entertaining. That way you can blow off any rational arguments they make as some kind of blind, irrational hate. Those silly partisans. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 08:24 PM | ||
| VinceZeb | Proto, he could have held back from using them because that would only make our fight just and cause and no one could deny it. I mean, what would get him more support in the long run: Using WMD and offing 10,000 of our troops, or putting the seeds of doubt into anti-bush hungry folks like yourself? | |
| Jul 1st, 2003 08:22 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Not to butt in for Vince, but I think we've been dancing all over your answer, Proto... This wouldn't be the first place it has been suggested that the weapons, if they are still in Iraq, were hidden very well. Coalition psy-ops prior to the actual fighting began were very explicit in that use of those weapons by Iraqi forces would constitute war crimes. I think it's pretty obvious that the majority opinion among the Iraqi military set was that defeat was inevitable, so i htink had Saddam wanted to use WMD capabilities, he would've had to go dig them up himself. And yes, FS. The satellites aren't right over their target. With enough viewpoints, it's possible to see all sides of any event. It is actually possible to see into a building as well, but the limitations are still easily exploited. As for: "They knew that they were not sure of this." what makes you so sure? Why would Saddam have spent so much money, time and resources for a bluff? I'm 99% sure that WMDs will eventually be found... and not just more of this cheap ass aluminum tube/blueprint crap. One thing is for sure: at the end of the Gulf War, he definitely had them and was required by the UN to prove that he was eliminating his stocks and destroying his capability to produce more. He never did that. There are very good arguments, however, against that alone being cause for war. The disarmament/sanctions game is not new. Hitler built a world-class military under similar restrictions, and the argument can be made that the game made him stronger and more determined to start WWII. Rather than turn a simple situation into a philosphical argument that is essentially unwinnable, the Bush team opted to go for the WMD angle and capitalize on the enduring 9/11 sentiment. I say they played their part well, and the results are proving that. Sure, your feelings a hurt a bit... but I'm thinking there's not anything short of abysmal failure by whatever effort America had put forth that would have pleased you guys. Go ahead and admit it. When the "He Lied! He Lied!" tactic fails you, either for lack of public interest or, more likely, the eventual unearthing of that smoking gun, you will Move On to the next tactic, completely ignoring that you have once again lost your credibility, just like you did when the Iraqi people didn't smash America on the gates of Bagdhad or when America didn't bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age. It's Ok to be partisan. God loves you all just as much as any of the rest of us. Go ahead and focus on getting John Kerry or Howard Dean into the White House next year. A bit of advice, though... if things keep going as they are right now, you might want to start looking for a non-Iraqi tactic to exploit relentlessly. This ceaseless Bush-bashing is just making ya'll look childish as hell... |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 08:10 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | Every politician lies and takes part in shady deals: It's just some are smart (or lucky) enough not to get caught! | |
| Jul 1st, 2003 08:08 PM | ||
| FS |
That's true. For someone who comes across as calculating as Hussein, you'd think there's hidden motives to his behavior if he really didn't have WMD anymore. Perhaps it was a matter of megalomania, Saddam believing himself king of the world because he'd been able to get away with his behavior for so long. Believing the public outrage with the war on Iraq would help, or even save him. Or, perhaps he really did have WMDs and was moving/selling them. Perhaps things didn't work out as he planned, he waited too long with allowing inspectors back in and decided to let things just run its course. The thing that irks me though, is that the Bush administration was far from sure of the threat of Iraq - rather the opposite. Even finding WMDs now can't change that. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 07:50 PM | ||
| GAsux |
... Proto, I totally see where you're coming from and I think it's a valid argument. But again, if he DIDN'T have them, isn't just as absurd to think that he would have played his cards the way he has all these years? It just doesn't make sense and I don't care how crazy a person tries to protray Saddam, he has historically shown that his hold on power in Iraq has always been his utmost concern. It just doesn't make any sense to me why he would play the game if he had nothing to hide in the first place. Why try so hard to stifle inspections early on. Why kick inspectors out and blatantly irk the international community in 1998. Why continue to play hard to get if all along there was nothing to hide anyway? It just doesn't add up. Regardless I don't suppose either point of view (he didn't give in so he must have been hiding something or he didn't use them so he must not have ever had them) is anything more than speculative, but it makes for interesting discussion. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 07:23 PM | ||
| FS |
Can a satellite really identify a license plate from a top-down view, or was that just a figure of speech?  Cute post, Vince. I like how Boortz doesn't really bother to explain exactly why Bush's words aren't a lie, but instead focuses on a nice "look over there" tactic with references to Clinton. Bush and most of his administration told the American people and the world that they were sure of the existence of WMD in Iraq and the imminent danger of them. They knew that they were not sure of this. Ergo, they lied. Simple as that. Nuff said. Bar none. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 06:56 PM | ||
| Protoclown |
Riddle me this, Vince...if Saddam had WMDs, why in the FUCK didn't he use them on us when we invaded his country? Seems highly illogical to me. Sure, it's possible he could have been that stupid, but damn, when you move away to your idiot utopia and we come and bomb you because we think you have WMDs, aren't you at least going to use whatever you have available to defend yourself? Oh, and just to reiterate for Vince's benefit: Bush said he knew where the weapons are, and it's painfully obvious that he didn't. He said somehing that was not true. That is the definition of a lie. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 04:23 PM | ||
| Preechr |
Quote:
Satellite imagery is not our only tool for spying. It's just one of the sexier ones we use. Most of our information still comes from old-fashioned, on-the-ground bribing people. Most of the middle east is pretty much immune to our efforts to do that. Americans will typically NOT live like even Iraqis do for the time it takes to successfully breach them. To be fully trusted in an Arab theocratic society, you have to be vouched for since birth or even longer. You can't fake that, and we don't have the will to imbed agents that deeply. That's one of the many reasons that we are such good friends with Israel, BTW. That have that kind of motivation. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 03:11 PM | ||
| kahljorn | Sometimes I think he did it all on purpose so America would invade and fuck shit up, find no WMD's and be seen as tyranical. It would be a nice blow in it's own form. He is on the end of his life, and he's obviously not the stupidest creature out there. | |
| Jul 1st, 2003 03:07 PM | ||
| Preechr | Maybe Saddam felt that the danger of letting his next door neighbor (who would LOVE to kill him) know he was now effectively defenseless was greater than the danger posed by American and UN pressure to do just that. Iran could have exerted pressure to that end during the US troop deployment, just to further muddy the waters, or maybe Saddam just dropped the ball at crunch time. Maybe he should have come clean with Bush & Co... had he actually destroyed the weapons... | |
| Jul 1st, 2003 02:25 PM | ||
| GAsux |
Strange.... It's a strange thing to ponder really. Since no WMD have been found, it would appear to be a safe assumption that they don't exist. But it doesn't make sense. Saddam has spent decades struggling to retain his stranglehold on power. He clearly demonstrated that he didn't care who he had to kill to maintain his grip. Perhaps I could rationalize that in 1998 he didn't believe that Clinton was committed enough to seriously jeopardize his regime so he felt comfortable in pushing the envelope. But under the Bush administration, particularly in the face of obvious military mobilization, surely Saddam didn't intend to call Bush's bluff did he? If there are not now and never were any WMDs, why would he do this? Why would he risk what would certainly been the end of his reign, and quite possibly his life in an effort to continue to thumb his nose at the U.N.? I guess that will always sort of baffle me. I suppose one could try to make the case that HE did try, and that the U.N. and U.S. stiffled him, placing him in a no win stituation, but I don't think that's the case. He played the hide and seek shells game for over a decade. Why would he do all that if he truly had nothing to hide? It's so irrational. I'm certainly not saying that this is proof that weapons DO exist, or did. Just that it seems like a curious move on Saddams part for the last half a decade at least to play this suicidal game if there was nothing to hide in the first place. |
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 02:15 PM | ||
| kahljorn | even if he didn't have them he still refused the UN sanction(i sound so smart, but i prolly spelled that wrong) to search for them. | |
| Jul 1st, 2003 01:48 PM | ||
| Zhukov |
Quote:
|
|
| Jul 1st, 2003 01:47 PM | ||
| AChimp |
Quote:
Can they see inside the building? Can they see inside the truck? According to your own admission, no they can't, so why were they drawing conclusions so quickly? There are many examples of where they discovered that the trucks weren't carrying what they thought when they surveyed the wreakage. So then what was the purpose of making all these claims about the satellite photos? I just know Vinth is going to come in here and say, "Well, they were knowing what they thought at the time in was the trucks! So lying they weren't! Jew!" If they weren't lying, then they were grossly ignorant or trying to mislead the public. Surely you can see that a determined Bush could do pretty much whatever he wished, as long as his staff was clever? Except they're not nearly as clever as Saddam if a) we still haven't found him and b) all these inconsistencies are emerging now. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
