Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-31-2005, 06:07 AM   #76
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
EE - Osama took away freedoms and imposed his will on the us? He plundered the resources of the states? How so?
i figured you'd bring something to this effect up, so here goes - it's not quite on the grand scale as an american invasion but conceptually, it's still pertinent. just because the news doesn't constantly bring up his points doesn't mean the points don't exist.

osama and his followers have "removed" the freedoms of their followers, including those who live inside the u.s. by having them on constant alert, awaiting a time when they should be called into action to do the work of "allah" - or osama, depending on how you look at it. he imposed his will upon the united states with his attack. doesn't matter how you slice that one up, the bottom line is - he planned, implemented and attacked the united states on our own soil in order to impose his will upon us, in order to make us sit up and take notice. and yes, he plundered the resources of the united states two-fold.

1.) he used the planes, fuel and innocent people of the united states (and elsewhere) to take down the towers.

2.) he continues to receive american money from charity groups set up in america.

again, it's not quite what you'll find on the news, but i'm not a news reporter - just an american saying it how he sees it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
He merely let you guys know hes still there, and even though he was out of site and out of mind for the majority of americans, he made sure ye knew he was still thinking about you.
i disagree. i think he, like all radical muslim men, and most middle eastern men, got a head so big he thought he could actually take on america and win. men in the middle east dominate their women and have no one to oppose them. they slap each others' backs, telling each other how great they are because they're men. someone like osama who can back that up with money, prestige through his family and by default - power - is easily swayed into believing that everyone, including the most powerful nation on earth should recognize his greatness - not because he wants us to know he's still around, but because his ego says he can.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 06:17 AM   #77
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeapotScar
But they're not lost opportunities if they're talked about and learned from- "should have"s and "shouldn't have"s are the only chance that we have to not repeat history.
first - hi, teapot-hot. glad you're still around.

second - not always true. i could talk about what happened the other night and try to learn from the fact that i really WANTED to get off before i went to bed, but that wouldn't mean that the next time i went out to the club i'd pick someone up for a night of wild sex. in broader terms, "should have's" remain in a gray area of unrealized consequences that could, in fact, bring about even worse outcomes - or much better ones. that's the gray area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teapotscar
If we brush of the HUGE mistakes that we made in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the next time we have an enemy that needs to be taken care of (North Korea or Iran, for example), we're just going to go about it the wrong way *again*. I don't want to see that happen, and I know you don't either.
i'd enjoy seeing our men and women stay at home, period - and watching the savage world outside our borders annihilate each other without our getting involved unless and until someone lobs a bomb our way. i'd like to see the united states take off the kid gloves and tear a new and permanent asshole into any country that feels big enough to attack us. there are a lot of things i'd like and unfortunately, i get very little of them. such is life.

the three mistakes we made in iraq and afghanistan are:

1.) starting this whole discussion of "winning the hearts and minds" of their people. make me fuckin' puke. the united states can't even win the hearts of minds of americans, as a collective unit.

2.) going in with kid gloves instead of ravaging the living piss out of their land.

3.) not pulling up our stuff and coming home AS SOON AS the clear and present danger we believed was there to begin with was deemed non-existant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teapotscar
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
we should have packed up and came home.
Hehe... :wink: see?

We should have listened to the inspectors in the first place, in my opinion.
i do see.

and we did listen to the inspectors. they told us they were being denied access.

case closed.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 06:32 AM   #78
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom
The irony is that just before Saddam invaded Kuwait and getting all the world concerned about those poor kuwaitees (oil supply) and triggering Desert Shield (the prequel to Desert Storm), the US congress was about to approve yet another arms sale to Iraq.
countries work with other countries in order to quench their "common interests", much the same as people get along with other people at one time and not another because it serves in their common interests at the time. i always find it amusing when i hear about how the united states went to kuwait becuase of oil, especially when they forget to mention that saddam invaded kuwait - why? - because of oil.

oh no, you say. he already had oil. he didn't need anymore. um, ok. so, in light of that argument, if someone has accrued 'x' number of dollars in their bank account, there's no need for them to accrue any more and he or she will cease trying to garner more riches. same line of thinking? correct?

saddam wanted, or i believe he wanted, an oil empire. common interests between kuwait and the u.s. dictated that that wasn't going to happen. end of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmaelstrom
Does anyone remember Rambo III?
What do you think that movie was all about?
Just send him in again to kill the Muhajedin he helped the last time around.
Stinger Missiles can be seen in various parts of the film in Afghan hands (that was one of the few true things about a Rambo film).
that's an out-and-out lie! all the rambo movies were awesome and accurate.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 06:43 AM   #79
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom
ok, THERE ARE NO WMD's. There weren't any for a while already, but fuck it. Saddam has been removed from power for a while now.
So what I want to know is:
Why aren't Iraquis wiping their own arses by now?
a-fucking-men. they're adults. they want freedom? fine. work for it. bring my brothers and sisters home. i'm sick of dumping money into that cesspool when my town needs things that same money, money generated by americans, could buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmaelstrom
AND JUST WHERE THE FUCK IS SADDAM?
Don't think you'll ever hear any real info from him, as he knows enough to seriously damage the US (more than has been done already).
don't martyrize him. and don't raise him to some bizarre altar of being the one to bring down the u.s. - whatever that means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmaelstrom
AND JUST WHERE THE FUCK IS OSAMA?
Really. Zawahiri's and Zarkawi's aside, wasn't he the 1st reason for troop deployment in the 1st place? Wasn't he global enemy number one?
if he's not dead, he will be someday. he created the machine and the machine will now run without him. shoving his head onto a spike will do nothing "real" in terms of slowing the machine.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 06:47 AM   #80
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom
E_E: thank you for your comment about my feelings towards the US being your word against mine. It takes a big man to say that (and you're a big man in more than one way and you showed it to me [not like that you pervs :evil: ])
no problem, my portuguese brother. even if you HATE us (kidding, kidding), we americans LOVE all of you (kidding, kidding).

bwa-hahahahaha.

seriously, though - you're welcome.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 07:00 AM   #81
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by TStone
A day or so ago I saw something that grated my nerves, and I’m going to back track a bit from everything that’s been posted since to address that.

E_E, I love you like a co-star in a double penetration porn, but I gotta wonder if you’re just ejaculating into a Osama blow up doll. To say all Muslims are pussies and deserve whatever punishments we decide to doll out to them is, well, pretty fucking harsh. There is a lot in life I find worth merit, and a lot I find lacking, but none of it (not one fucking iota of it) can I reduce to one people.
anger, man - made the initial statement come out shoddily - you're exactly right. thanx for (finally) calling me on it.

i appreciate not being able to get away with lazy comments.

i qualified my statement later, like you said - and i think i got my point across.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
And neither do I think this whole flushing of the Koran merits this level of attention. We can all agree people do fucked up things without thinking about it. An American flushes a Koran down the toilet, a Saudi Arabian shoves a box cutter in a pilots throat and has him fly into a building.
bizarre how the contrast of actions is never relayed on the "news", isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tstone
I think you qualified your statement, later E_E, very artistically, but…words do carry weight, and people are swayed by them. There very well may be an E_E acolyte out there right now who read your original statement that all Muslims are pussies, is shaving his or her head, and planning the next apocalypse :} just because you said all Muslims are pussies.
now, that's an odd and discomforting thought. if there IS an acolyte out there - don't listen to me. i'm too ignorant to lead and i don't want that job.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 08:35 AM   #82
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
i don't think i've ever posted this much bullshit in one sitting. oh well.

and maelstrom - we're not robots. we have emotions. sometimes they break through the adult facade of stoicism society dictates we must present at all times. (like that? )

relish it - it makes you human. just don't abuse it - cuz that'll make you an abrasive asshole, even though you like to be referred to as such.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 05:45 PM   #83
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Wow, Mael, TS, EE, and myself finally seem to agree at least on a few points here. Someone write this shite down.

Mael, you are been spot on with everything you have written in this thread may I add.

EE, you think being in Iraq is bad, and you feel you were not only mislead, but also feel that the troops should be sent home and the Iraqis should deal with their own nation building. Sound.

TS - Your points on not grouping people and labeling them along with the comments about people not having time to do as much as they want because life gets in the way is also spot on.

Maybe in the past, like EE I *may* (big cheeky grin) have used some harsh rhetoric, but those are some the main points of exactly what I was try to convey. May have been in a different manner, but thats basically it.

To sum up, can we agree...

-The Iraq war was un-needed. To keep troops there is a continued mistake that not only hurts the countries involved but destroys lives for no reason.

-Blanket grouping of Muslims and/or Arabs is racist and bias. (Like Dennis Miller once said, get to know someone on a personal level - there are so many more valid reasons to hate a person and you can get to know them all!)

-Most Americans are too busy to really do anything about the current political situtation. This is not their fault - they have lives to lead, and not only did they not vote for the war, most oppose it, but due to the current situtation in Washington, even if they organise they wouldn't be able to make much of a difference.

These all points we can agree on? We need to include or modify these?



Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 06:11 PM   #84
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
We'll just make a little amendment to that statement by saying that most Americans at the time were for the war and found it necessary, along with 48 other nations.

To this day, Kurds and most of the Iraqi people will still have found the war necessary in removing Saddam from power. In fact, in an opinion poll conducted in Iraq, the majority of Iraqis say life is better in postwar Iraq.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 06:14 PM   #85
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
EE, you think being in Iraq is bad, and you feel you were not only mislead, but also feel that the troops should be sent home and the Iraqis should deal with their own nation building. Sound.
ah, ah, ah - don't put words in my mouth. i think being in iraq is bad - NOW. i do NOT feel i was mislead - i trust that bush believed there was a threat and that as president, he did what he was required to do, which was to protect the united states from what was believed to be an imminent threat to the united states. it was globally believed that the weapons existed. and NOW, with the threat neutralized or at least believed to be gone, i absolutely feel the troops should be brought home. no threat = no military action. let those savages fend for themselves.

don't put words into my mouth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
To sum up, can we agree...

-The Iraq war was un-needed. To keep troops there is a continued mistake that not only hurts the countries involved but destroys lives for no reason.
i can NOT agree with this in its entirety. the iraq war was a justified action. the rest of the world (read as 'the united nations') does not like to be perceived as a bunch of lazy do-nothings (even though they are) but that doesn't negate the fact that every single resolution they passed was tossed aside by saddam. the u.s. did something about it, mainly because the continued inactivity of the u.n. was believed to put us in peril. someone had to. once again, the united states stepped up to the plate.

keeping troops there now isn't warranted and realistically, impossible to justify according to the constitution of the united states. they should come home. they should have come home the second the united states declared we were finished looking for weapons because we believed they were no longer there.

and what's up with this - "hurts the countries involved but destroys lives for no reason"? dude, bring that to hallmark. maybe they can make a card out of it. boo hoo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
-Most Americans are too busy to really do anything about the current political situtation. This is not their fault - they have lives to lead, and not only did they not vote for the war, most oppose it, but due to the current situtation in Washington, even if they organise they wouldn't be able to make much of a difference.
expand this to a universal, world wide and collective statement. i think it's fair to say that no matter where people are, they make very little difference overall when it comes to getting all of the allied militaries out of iraq, or effecting any sort of significant difference, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
We need to include or modify these?
points modified.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 07:17 PM   #86
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
EE - I see your point, but in your own words yu say 'he believed' which means he didn't know, and as fact show now he was 100% wrong on those points. You don't feel mislead by that?

Also, you speak of UN Resolutions. He did let in inspectors, maybe not to the extent of what they wanted, but they were working until the bush administration forced them to pull out for attack. We also know they were right, and the data they collect showed the truth - there were no weapons, so if your arguing Sadaam was tricking inspectors then you also must be arguing he had something to hide, which we know now is false as there are no WMD's.

And if we talk about UN Resolutions, lets look at Israel first, as right now they stand in defiance of 74 UN Resolutions, but there is no one attacking them as the us has warned any attacks on them will result in attacks by the us. One of the biggest resolutions they ignore is the nuclear arms pact. Aside from the fact they refuse to stop nuclear proliferation, they refuse to let inspectors in to see if they are hiding them. It's well known they have the resources to create them, and Newsweek did a piece last year on how they have one of the worlds largest nuclear arsenals, but as I said, no one is invading them trying to control those WMD's.

Also, the comment you made about the 'destroys lives for no reason'. Right now, are us troops dying for a good cause? You feel they still should be there? If not, then they are dynig for no good reason.

And yes, no matter where anyone is, Iraq can't be affected, but thats mainly because the main 2 countries who are running the show are the us and britian, and we know britian has no problem with invading a country, stationing troops there for a few hundred years, and running it via proxy losing hundreds of their own men every year. I mean, I could list the countries they did this in (including Iraq until 1930's). Their own people protested much like those in the states, however it never made a difference (like Ireland) until the insurgency go too much to handle with other conflicts emerging.

Binkie - by most do you mean 51%? And by 48 countries do you mean places like Botswana and Puloa? You have to admit bush just bought those small countries off to say he had more than just the us and the uk going into war. I mean, he just gave all those wee nations a few hundred million not a few months ago to show his 'thanks' for their 'support'.

But at least we sorta agree on some of the main structure. Tis a start. It's safe to say everyone wants the troops out of Iraq, for whatever reason.

Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 07:32 PM   #87
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
EE - I see your point, but in your own words yu say 'he believed' which means he didn't know, and as fact show now he was 100% wrong on those points. You don't feel mislead by that?
no. i don't feel misled. bush believed, as all involved believed, that the weapons were there. all intelligence factions cited that the weapons were there.

hindsight is ALWAYS 20-20, to puke up a cliche. negating what happened then by what we know now is a faulty argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
Also, you speak of UN Resolutions. He did let in inspectors, maybe not to the extent of what they wanted, but they were working until the bush administration forced them to pull out for attack. We also know they were right, and the data they collect showed the truth - there were no weapons, so if your arguing Sadaam was tricking inspectors then you also must be arguing he had something to hide, which we know now is false as there are no WMD's.
what we know NOW and what we knew THEN are two, different arguments. saddam consistently refused to grant access to various sites. that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
And if we talk about UN Resolutions, lets look at Israel first, as right now they stand in defiance of 74 UN Resolutions, but there is no one attacking them as the us has warned any attacks on them will result in attacks by the us. One of the biggest resolutions they ignore is the nuclear arms pact. Aside from the fact they refuse to stop nuclear proliferation, they refuse to let inspectors in to see if they are hiding them. It's well known they have the resources to create them, and Newsweek did a piece last year on how they have one of the worlds largest nuclear arsenals, but as I said, no one is invading them trying to control those WMD's.
i don't need to look at israel. the president of the united states is obligated to act upon perceived imminent threats against the united states. such a situation does not exist in israel. what other countries do as a result of this knowledge is up to them, not us.

and using newsweek as a source of information is not all that trustworthy at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
Also, the comment you made about the 'destroys lives for no reason'. Right now, are us troops dying for a good cause? You feel they still should be there? If not, then they are dynig for no good reason.
for the american troops whose lives continue to be affected by this war - you're right. bring our boys and girls home. i can't say it enough.

for iraqis - that blood is on saddam's hands, although i doubt he much cares other than the fact he's been removed from his palaces.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 09:03 PM   #88
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Yeah, 51% or higher would be considered the majority. I don't mean 51% on the dot though, if that's what you're asking.

And yeah, I'm talking about the other 48 countries such as Britain, Italy, Japan, Australia, Norway, Spain, Canada, and all those guys.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 09:18 PM   #89
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Also, Saddam did have something to hide, as he had plans to build up his WMD program again (those mobile vans with fermenting vats? We found 'em). Also, was he supposed to have the cyclosarin warheads Polish troops found? Oh, that's right, he wasn't. U.N. inspectors didn't apparently know everything now did they?
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 09:45 PM   #90
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Binkie
Also, Saddam did have something to hide, as he had plans to build up his WMD program again (those mobile vans with fermenting vats? We found 'em). Also, was he supposed to have the cyclosarin warheads Polish troops found? Oh, that's right, he wasn't. U.N. inspectors didn't apparently know everything now did they?
damn, binkie - on target, lock and load.....

__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 12:15 AM   #91
AlKilyu
 
AlKilyu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by edible_eye
damn, binkie - on target, lock and load.....

Yeah...



Gets me hot and bothered too!
AlKilyu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 06:24 AM   #92
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
That M10 is getting me hot a bothered.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 10:01 AM   #93
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
EE - I wasn't using newsweek as a source, just pointing out they did a piece on how Israel is in violation of all those resolutions and hasn't even recieved ANY sanctions or even a slap on the wrist. YOu made the point that Iraq violated 2 resoultions as a reason to go to war, I am just saying that if that were a valid reason for war, then why is Israel still sitting pretty happily violating every resolution it gets (note most are on nuclear arms and human rights violations).

Also, most Americans felt mislead prior to the war. I remember protests, a few dozen congreesmen, the CIA, the FBI, and many others saying that the evidence was faulty. I also remember people blasting Powells speech.

Binkie- wow, for a person who has all the stats, did you not get the two eapons inspectors along with the CIA report stating those trucks could never have been used for weapons, that they were used for weather service balloons?

Also, the 'ability' the 'restart' a 'possible programme' is not a threat. If you start attacking people based on desire, you might as well arrest all men for ****, I mean, they have the equiptment with them al lthe time, and hell, I'm betting they have htrough about sex before. Attacking based on those facts you could imprison all men for thinking about sex and having the tools to do so. What it comes down to is the act. No act, no crime. I can own a box of tools, but if I don't use it to break into a bank, then I'm not in violation of a law. I can own a gun, as long as I don't go to my neighbors home and point it at him.
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 12:06 PM   #94
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
How "many" times can "you" use "quotation marks" in a single "sentence?"

Which CIA report did you find that information in? Was is a pre-war report? Did you actually read any report on this? Why you don't take a look at the real CIA assessment of these discovered vans (that were deliberately buried underground, by the way).

I also find it amusing that you've gone from saying, "Iraq wasn't hiding anything," to arguing, "So what if they were hiding something?" Arguement number one doesn't work much anymore, so I guess we can all agree that U.N. inspectors didn't know everything and were actually in the dark about the vans as well as the warheads.
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 12:14 PM   #95
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
EE - I wasn't using newsweek as a source, just pointing out they did a piece on how Israel is in violation of all those resolutions and hasn't even recieved ANY sanctions or even a slap on the wrist.
fair enough, but that's a united nations issue. remember that asinine group labeled as a "global community"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
YOu made the point that Iraq violated 2 resoultions as a reason to go to war, I am just saying that if that were a valid reason for war, then why is Israel still sitting pretty happily violating every resolution it gets (note most are on nuclear arms and human rights violations).
because of the difference between apples and oranges.

iraq was perceived as a clear and present danger to the united STATES. that's why the united STATES moved in to rectify the situation.

if the united NATIONS feels israel is a clear and present danger to whomever, perhaps they'll move to do something about it - i doubt it, but who knows? i've seen things happen before i thought were impossible.

bottom line - israel does not currently pose an imminent threat to the united STATES now, nor did it then, nor will it most likely be so any time in the near future and therefore will not fall within our cross hairs, no matter how many resolutions you claim they violate.

c'mon, sternn - this is american constitution 101. you say you served. you should understand the differentiation.

and to be clear - there were 17 total resolutions violated by saddam, not 2.


Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
Also, most Americans felt mislead prior to the war. I remember protests, a few dozen congreesmen, the CIA, the FBI, and many others saying that the evidence was faulty. I also remember people blasting Powells speech.
remove the word "most" from your assertion, unless of course, you tallied and have some sort of registered documentation to back it up. i tend to think the opposite is true, but i have no documentation to offer as a counter, so i guess we're at a standstill.

seriously, though - america is a melting pot of people, ideals, opinions, etc. i remember those things you mentioned - and the protests i walked through in boston, specific, were not all that impressive, other than to hold up traffic and get a few punks arrested..
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 05:08 PM   #96
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Ok, I've posted these before, but google iraq mobile weapon labs and see what comes back. Binkie, I found the link you posted, and you HAD to go through dozens of articles, many which I am about to list, showing that that data not only was discredited, but bush and powell both APOLOGISED for it. They new it was bad, they, well blamed it on the CIA, and more importantly THAT DODGEY REPORT you were nice enough to search long and hard for.

Here are some updated, from a few months ago, regarding that very report you so conveniently found for us...

Tests rule out suspect bio-labs

KABALA, Iraq (CNN) -- The buried labs U.S. troops found last week were not the mobile chemical and biological weapons labs one U.S. Army general suspected, according to the head of an expert team brought in to examine them.

The 11 cargo containers were filled with new laboratory equipment apparently intended to make conventional weapons, said team leader Chief Warrant Officer 2 Monte Gonzalez.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...j.irq.no.labs/


Powell Blames C.I.A. for Error on Iraq Mobile Labs

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Friday that he had had assurances from the intelligence community that one of the principal charges he made in a speech to the United Nations last year — that Iraq had mobile weapons laboratories — had been multisourced and was solid at the time.

Mr. Powell urged a presidential commission examining intelligence problems in Iraq to look into what he said was a failure by the Central Intelligence Agency.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...a28may2003.htm


Powell admits Iraq evidence mistake

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that evidence he submitted to the United Nations to justify war on Iraq may have been wrong.
In February last year he told the UN Security Council that Iraq had developed mobile laboratories for making biological weapons.

On Friday he conceded that information "appears not to be... that solid".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3596033.stm


And more importantly, the president own personally appointed republican commission which had this to say just a couple of months ago...

Report: Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a scathing report on the intelligence community, a presidential commission Thursday said the United States still knows "disturbingly little" about the weapons programs and intentions of many of its "most dangerous adversaries."

The panel also determined the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

"This was a major intelligence failure," said a letter from the commission to President Bush.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/03/31/intel.report/


Iraq intelligence 'dead wrong'

[i]Washington - A presidential commission on US intelligence lapses said Thursday that assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destructions were "dead wrong" and produced dents in US credibility that will take years to repair.

The conclusions were contained in the final report presented to President George W Bush by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

"We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," the panel said in a cover letter to Bush.

It said in the conclusion to its report that "the harm done to American credibility by our all too public intelligence failures in Iraq will take years to undo." [/i[

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/I...683519,00.html



US intelligence ‘dead wrong’ on Iraq threat

The presidential commission tasked with investigating intelligence failures warned on Thursday that the US knows “disturbingly little” about efforts by Iran, North Korea and others to acquire nuclear weapons, adding that in some cases the quality of intelligence had deteriorated over the past decade.

At the same time, it issued the harshest assessment yet of the US pre-war intelligence on Iraq, concluding: “The intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.”


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/647326e0-a1...00e2511c8.html




Those are just the first ones I found. You really had to look long and hard to go back and find that inncorrect report you posted here. Are you that convoluted in your own mind that youu don't want to see whats right in front of you?

GOOGLE - IRAQ MOBILE WEAPON and look at the results...

Hell, here is the link to google for you!

http://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+...47%2CGGLD%3Aen


Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 05:34 PM   #97
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
EE - that previous post was for you and binkster, it had a few links for both of you since ye both inquired about them.

However, yes, I served, and I took constitutional law in pre-law in university. However, I also know before the war there was just as much evidence pointing against bush's assertions as there were for them. A 50/50 chance is not the odds you want when going to war. The American legal system is based on 'beyond the shadow of a doubt', and I think when it comes to starting a war, ending the lives of thousands, and spending hundreds of billions (300 and counting), ANY government that chooses to go into a military conflict needs the support of the people, other nations, and proper evidence that has been verified.


Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 06:57 PM   #98
edible_eye
 
edible_eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptSternn
However, yes, I served, and I took constitutional law in pre-law in university. However, I also know before the war there was just as much evidence pointing against bush's assertions as there were for them.
i don't agree. the president had a decision to make. that's what presidents do. there was little-to-no talk of evidence against the weapons exisitng in iraq. there was a belief that those weapons would be used against the united states. to not act upon such a perceived threat would be an impeachable offense, not to mention disastrous if the weapons believed to be there wound up detonating on our shores.


Quote:
Originally Posted by captsternn
A 50/50 chance is not the odds you want when going to war. The American legal system is based on 'beyond the shadow of a doubt', and I think when it comes to starting a war, ending the lives of thousands, and spending hundreds of billions (300 and counting), ANY government that chooses to go into a military conflict needs the support of the people, other nations, and proper evidence that has been verified.
50-50? that estimate is grossly over-rated. according to the reasons we went to war, the danger posed toward the united states absolutely WAS beyond a shadow of a doubt.

and i disagree strongly with the assertion that the support of other nations is needed for the president to declare war. if other nations feel they have a reason to assist or initiate war alongside of us, so be it. but the president's duty is to protect the citizens of the united states over and above whatever other nations declare is supportable.

i think i've made my beliefs apparent - and really, how many times can i say the same thing again-and-again?. i'm leaving tomorrow for california and therefore, must bow out of this. there is nothing anti-american that can be said to sway what i believe and therefore, although sternn, and to some degree maelstrom and to some degree much of the world out there harbors some animosity toward my country - i sit on the opposite side of that fence, and proudly so. aside from the fact that we should no longer be in iraq, i believe the united states is the greatest nation on the face of this earth. that's it. god bless the u.s.a.

the important thing to remember, i think, is that all opinions are valid as long as they can be qualified or discussed and are not just thrown out there based on pure, unprocessed emotion - such as the statement about muslims i started out with. maelstrom and tstone were right to call me on it and i still appreciate that they did.

anyway, have a good week all. i'm not much of a political discussant, but i'd pretty much had enough of the 'koran in the toilet' issue without expressing my feelings. thanx for including me in the ongoing discussions.
__________________
"How many times can I say I'm not sorry? And how many ways can I show I don't care?" - Type O Negative
edible_eye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2005, 07:05 PM   #99
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Let's see, none of the articles discuss the report, several are dated back before the report was published (citing that further analysis was being conducted at the time they were written) and the ones that do vaguely mention the mobile labs fail to cite what information was deemed "unreliable" (as only part of it was), which, by the way, is unable to be independantly confirmed by the ISG.

In regards to your first article, here's another published just a month later.

Another article

Course, I knew what I was searching for, thusly I was able to find the CIA report pretty much right off the bat: Google It, Bitch. I find it funny though that you had so much trouble finding a copy of the report in your own search, as it was only the 6th link down the list of the first page (and ironically enough, IS the second link you provided).

:roll:
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 08:29 AM   #100
CptSternn
 
CptSternn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,587
Binkster - first, your articles are prior to the articles I posted. Again.

Second, the date on the report is the date it was released to the public. Think about it - how could Powell have used it and shown it to the UN members if it didn't exist?

Also, what about Powells multiple apologies on the matter? You just going to say he didn't apologise even though there was coverage from every major agency on him apoligising for the 'incorrect' (his words) information on those labs.

Also, the presidents own committee, along with the 'weapons experts' - second team also appointed directly by bush himself, say the exact opposite of what your trying to sell, and it says as much in those links above.

How do you explain that? Liberal media? I photoshopped it? Cummon, you just discredit all the CNN, Washington Post, ABC, and other news sources because they don't fit into your bubble?

Please by all means explain this to us!

Also, I included the google link, why did you alter it, and add BW? To get more results that point to the incorrect conclusion? Remove the BW you added, and google for IRAQ MOBILE WEAPONS and you will see the same report you posted comes back, with a dozen links discrediting that report. No need to try and cherry pick your articles by limiting the search with those extra constraints you added there. Actually, play around with the three words, GOOGLE them each way, and see that none of the articles you found by adding BW come back. Nice attempt to once again steer people from the truth.

Slán
CptSternn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:47 PM.