President

[skoteinh]

oh well, I thought that everybody was free to post their thoughts around here... but it seems that some people have a tendency to just try and intimidate anybody that has a different opinion than theirs. :roll:

and something else: if one sustains that their country is the only superpower in the world and therefore is justified when it makes decisions that affect other peoples countries, maybe they should think that, whether they like it or not, that gives the right to anybody on this earth to have an opinion and express it.

P.S. again, it was just an opinion, and to make things clear: I have nothing against the states whatsoever. The last thing I want is to start an argument, so from now on I will not post anything on this or any relevant thread.

[Deadhymn]

well, we get the chance to watch them debate Iraq tonight. Should be fun to watch Kerry try and remember what he's said about the issue publicly so far, so he can appear consistent for once....

[TeapotScar]

http://develnet.org/ThisAndThat/Dadd...veToAttackIraq

I have no words...funny, but sad.

[AlKilyu]

Iraq's nuclear program

While the final report from Charles Duelfer, the top American inspector of Iraq's covert weapons programs, won't be released for a few weeks, the portions that have already been made public touch on many of the experiences I had while working as the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear centrifuge program. Now that I am living in the United States, I hope to answer some of the most important questions that remain.
What was really going on in Iraq before the American invasion last year? Iraq's nuclear weapons program was on the threshold of success before the 1991 invasion of Kuwait - there is no doubt in my mind that we could have produced dozens of nuclear weapons within a few years - but was stopped in its tracks by UN weapons inspectors after the Gulf war and was never restarted. During the 1990s, the inspectors discovered all of the laboratories, machines and materials we had used in the nuclear program, and all were destroyed or otherwise incapacitated.
By 1998, when Saddam Hussein evicted the weapons inspectors from Iraq, all that was left was the dangerous knowledge of hundreds of scientists and the blueprints and prototype parts for the centrifuge, which I had buried under a tree in my garden.
In addition to the inspections, the sanctions that were put in place by the United Nations after the Gulf war made reconstituting the program impossible. During the 1980s, we had relied heavily on the international black market for equipment and technology; the sanctions closed that avenue.
Another factor in the mothballing of the program was that Saddam was profiting handsomely from the UN oil-for-food program, building palaces around the country with the money he skimmed. I think he didn't want to risk losing this revenue stream by trying to restart a secret weapons program.
Over the course of the 1990s, most of the scientists from the nuclear program switched to working on civilian projects or in conventional-weapons production, and the idea of building a nuclear bomb became a vague dream from another era.
So, how could the West have made such a mistaken assessment of the nuclear program before the invasion last year? Even to those of us who knew better, it's fairly easy to see how observers got the wrong impression. First, there was Saddam's history. He had demonstrated his desire for nuclear weapons since the late 1970s, when Iraqi scientists began making progress on a nuclear reactor. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iran during the 1980s.
After the 1991 war, he had tried to hide his programs in weapons of mass destruction for as long as possible (he even kept my identity secret from weapons inspectors until 1995). It would have been hard not to suspect him of trying to develop such weapons again.
The Western intelligence services and policy makers, however, overlooked some obvious clues. One was the defection and death of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who was in charge of the unconventional weapons programs in the 1980s.
As my boss, Kamel was a brutal taskmaster who forced us to work under impossible deadlines and was the motivating force for our nuclear effort. The drive for nuclear weapons began in earnest when he rose to a position of power in 1987. He placed a detail of 20 fearsome security men on the premises of our centrifuge lab, and my staff and I worked wonders just to stay out of his dungeons. But after he defected to Jordan in 1995, and then returned months later only to be assassinated by his father-in-law's henchmen, the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs lost their top promoter.
In addition, the West never understood the delusional nature of Saddam's mind. By 2002, when the United States and Britain were threatening war, he had lost touch with the reality of his diminished military might.
By that time I had been promoted to director of projects for the country's entire military-industrial complex, and I witnessed firsthand the fantasy world in which he was living. He backed mythic but hopeless projects, like one for a long-range missile that was completely unrealistic considering the constraints of international sanctions.
The director of another struggling missile project, when called upon to give a progress report, recited a poem in the dictator's honor instead. Not only did he not go to prison, Saddam applauded him.
By 2003, as the American invasion loomed, the tyrant was alternately working on his next trashy novel and giving lunatic orders like burning oil around Baghdad to "hide" the city from bombing attacks. Unbelievably, one of my final assignments was to prepare a 10-year plan for military-industrial works, even as tens of thousands of troops were gathering for invasion.
To the end, Saddam kept alive the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, staffed by junior scientists involved in research completely unrelated to nuclear weapons, just so he could maintain the illusion in his mind that he had a nuclear program. Sort of like the emperor with no clothes, he fooled himself into believing he was armed and dangerous. But unlike that fairy-tale ruler, Saddam fooled the rest of the world as well.
Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.
Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980s, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.
So what now? The dictator may be gone, but that doesn't mean the nuclear problem is behind us. Even under the watchful eyes of Saddam's security services, there were worries that our scientists might escape to other countries or sell their knowledge to the highest bidder. This expertise is even more valuable today, with nuclear technology ever more available on the black market and a proliferation of peaceful energy programs around the globe that use equipment easily converted to military use.
Hundreds of my former staff members and fellow scientists possess knowledge that could be useful to a rogue nation eager for a covert nuclear weapons program. The vast majority are technicians who, like the rest of us, care first about their families and their livelihoods.
It is vital that the United States ensure they get good and constructive jobs in postwar Iraq. The most accomplished of my former colleagues could be brought, at least temporarily, to the West and placed at universities, research labs and private companies.
The United States invaded Iraq in part to end what it saw as a nuclear danger. It is now vital to reduce the chance of Iraq's dangerous knowledge spilling outside of its borders. The nuclear dangers facing the world are growing, not decreasing. My hope is that the Iraqi example can help people understand how best to deal with this threat.

Mahdi Obeidi is the author of "The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind." Kurt Pitzer, who collaborated on the book, assisted with this article.


In posting that I am concieding that there might not have been WMND (no sarin? then how'd they get what they have now?) but this article is fair and balanced from someone who was there and understands how the world was fooled, even if he thinks that Sadam's son-in-law being murdered was a "clue"...

[edible_eye]

ah, skote -

don't go away just because of that. differing of opinions goes both ways. don't slam the door on relevant threads just because your opinion wasn't wholly embraced.

i say - stick out that chest (please), take a deep breath and voice what you will. if someone agrees, fine. if someone disagrees, fine. but don't shut down just because a voice of dissent sounded off.

- mark

[AlKilyu]

...and don't blame others because you either don't want to or can't argue your points. No one here tried to intimidate you or anyone else. If you have issues they are your own.

It is really popular, especially amongst certain foreign posters to bash the U.S. and it's goverment. God forbid someone stick up for either, or that they go after much worse countries with equal ferver.

It's the people in a crowd that feel the safest. When called out to explain their fews is when you really see if they have anything behind what they say.

If you say something here it's gonna be questioned, and unlike MOST of the others, EE and I will not resort to name calling or infering you are an "idiot" for your views.

Who else can say that?

[edible_eye]

true dat, yo

*thumping chest with fist*
*extending peace sign sideways*

[skoteinh]

If you put it that way... you're right.

I just felt like an unwanted outsider for a moment... personal issues were indeed behind my reaction. And being a goth has something to do with it as well :roll:

I should have realized that it wasn't a personal attack, it's just that I am relatively new here and thought I didn't "fit in".

Thank you AlKilyu and EE for your encouragement!

AlKilyu: I will continue bashing the U.S. and it's government at will, complete with arguments, as I am sure you would ours if you knew or cared about what's happenning in our political field! :P

[Bicth_in-the_Basement666]

did any one wacth the debate last nite i meant to but screaming childeren demand attion and i had to help them get thier home work done.

(think's about her 2 nieces and brother and how evil they can be when the put thier minds to it)

[AlKilyu]

Originally Posted by skoteinh

if you knew or cared about what's happenning in our political field! :P

Nope.

[TeapotScar]

Originally Posted by Bicth_in-the_Basement666

did any one wacth the debate last nite i meant to but screaming childeren demand attion and i had to help them get thier home work done.

(think's about her 2 nieces and brother and how evil they can be when the put thier minds to it)

More importantly, did anyone watch the daily show's coverage of it? Fucking hilarious.

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play...ines/9040.html

[edible_eye]

hahahahahaha. thanx, teapot.

[ice]

I found it hilarious... but my Death MEtal Accordian band was blasting my earsss to muhc so I dint' here what he siad. I was laughimng though :D

[JohnKerry]

I just want to say,
For those of you who have shown your support for the Kerry campaign, Thank You. Maybe I'll even reward the few of you with a tax break, seeing as to where I'll be raising taxes sky high in order to pay for all of my programs and plans, such as "Operation: Do What Bush is Doing... But Without Bush as President."

Yes, a fine nation we can make this to be. By setting unrealistic goals for our nation, we can win this thing. Watch for me on my upcoming debate with President Bush. And if you watch, remember, while I may be avoiding the answers, explaining what I really plan to do, and how I plan to actually do these things, just listen to how wrong the Bush administration is on everything, and how voting Bush out is the right thing to do.

Vote for Kerry.

[AlKilyu]

LOL!

That's fucking sweet!

Hey there John! How's it hangin? And by "it" I mean your jowls?

Don't listen to those who criticized you for getting a manicure while Bush was touring the hurricane damage and the folks who are affected, cause the nails won the debate that night!

And do we call it "ketchup" or "catsup"?

[JohnKerry]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

LOL!

That's fucking sweet!

Hey there John! How's it hangin? And by "it" I mean your jowls?

Don't listen to those who criticized you for getting a manicure while Bush was touring the hurricane damage and the folks who are affected, cause the nails won the debate that night!

And do we call it "ketchup" or "catsup"?

On the first order of business, young man, let's not resort to name calling and slander. I mean, I don't sling mud. At least not until I'm finished with my two sentences per campaign stop that actually deliver some form of hope to the American people.

On the second order of business, thank you for your compliments and noticing my nails. That's what debates are all about in this day and age, young man. Style. Just look at the Newsweek polls. The American people prefer style to substance.

On the third order of business, you'll have to ask my basket case of a wife. That is, when my campaign advisers allow her to speak publicly again, seeing as to where they've kept her as far away from me as possible throguhout my campaign to avoid another "unpatriotic" fiasco.

Vote for Kerry.

[Jane13]

This is too funny! Who the hell is that?

[TeapotScar]

Mr. Kerry! Mr. Kerry! Would you care to comment on the Daily Show's coverage of your first debate?

You kicked his ass...

"Actually, you forgot Poland!"

[skoteinh]

Election 2004! Vote for your favourite candidate:

link removed by moderator... sorry skote! s'pron though :wink:

[edible_eye]

awesome link. i'm gonna have to make my way through it nice and slow. it won't sway my vote, though - except for maybe nader. that chic with all the pot was pretty hot.

[TeapotScar]

Personally, I don't like how the situation in Iraq was handled, and I know I'm not alone. Iraq administrator Paul Bremer: "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness...We never had enough troops on the ground." This statement basically admits that the United States did not fight this war to the best of its ability, which cost our nation over a thousand young lives. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...x_GRAPHIC.html Looking at their lives, how some of them are younger than people I'm friends with, I just can't imagine how these politicians can have it in the back of their minds that if they had handled Iraq differently, these people would still be alive. It's sickening. I don't see how Dick Cheney can say "What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to (do) all over again, I would recomment exactly the same course of action." It simply makes no sense to deny the grave mistakes that occured in Iraq.
Another quote that concerns me: George W. Bush: "I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America." ...so Iraq is doing better than America- that's nothing to laugh at.

Bush: "...The main reason we'll succeed [in Iraq] is because the Iraqis want to be free." Which is what they're trying to tell us with all of their resistance to the presence of American troops. Honestly- kidnappings, fire, ambushes...who are you kidding.

10/4/04: Two car bombings kill at least 21 and wound 96.
9/13/04: Suicide car bombing in Baghdad kills at least 47 and ounds 114.
8/19/03: A truck bomber kills 22 in Baghdad, including U.N. envoy to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello. (A picture of this one is below)

It's been going on for a ridiculous amount of time, and it's not getting better.

Without the support of the United Nations, we never should have gone. The support of two super-power countries are not enough to win this conceptual battle. I was sickened by George W. Bush's ignorance of how undermining the United Nations' decision would have grave consequences, especially since it is now proved that he knew there was no urgency. There were no WMD's, and he knew it. Sick.

*However*, I don't necessarily think that withdrawl is the right course of action- and Kerry has stated that he would begin withdrawlss within a year or taking office. I don't like how unclear Kerry has been on his Iraq stance. He has yet to clearly state whether or not he would have gone to war, leaving it as an ambiguous "I would have done almost everything differently..." And how does he propose to get the troops out? What is his plan of action?

Frankly, neither candidate really gives me hope for improvement in Iraq. Now that we've gone so wrong, though, I'm doubtful that there *is* a way that things will improve. I say "Vote Kerry" merely because he is less likely than Bush is to drag us into another war.

...We're doomed

[AlKilyu]

Teapot those attacks are meant to scare us and the Iraqi people into stopping the process.

Most of those attacks are from insurgents.

We could close the borders better, but we don't.

Why you ask?

Because the insurgents are poring in from everywhere. They would more than likely bomb a hotel in an African coutry, or a school in Russia. or poison tomato sauce cans in Italy, or set off a dirty bomb in the U.S. And they'd either kill themselves or blend back into the crowd. There we have a chance to take them out once and for all.

You are not getting the full story on our success rates down there either. There is a reason for that, and though I wasn't sworn to secrecy on the matter, I just assume keep it hush hush. There are battles down there that are not publicized. The gentleman I spoke to had he and 60 others pinned down against some 200+ insurgents and foriegners. They were backed up against the Tigris river. They held their own and called in for an airstrike, but the miitary would not as there were innocents around. So the Marines called in three Commanchie helicopters, that proceeded to take out the enemy.

Now that is a good story, but you won't hear it in the media for many reasons.

Like I say there;s a lot we don't know.

You stay liberal, that is your choice. I have turned Republican, that's a choice I made after many years. I don't want you to change, not at all.

I just want to make sure you know as much as you can. In saying that I am not saying that I am the one to tell you, nor is Fox News (though they are the best for non-partisan), but it's out there. You have a huge heart and hopefully it stays that way, God knows there needs to be more women like that, more people.

Just make sure you know as much as you can. I don't care if you agree with me on anything, just make sure neither side overwhelms you. ^_^

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

Most of those attacks are from insurgents.

And what exactly is an insurgent, other than someone who doesn't stand what s/he sees and acts upon it?

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

We could close the borders better, but we don't.

Why you ask?^_^

Because you really can't?

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

There are battles down there that are not publicized.

No shit!!!

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

The gentleman I spoke to had he and 60 others pinned down against some 200+ insurgents and foriegners. They were backed up against the Tigris river. They held their own and called in for an airstrike, but the miitary would not as there were innocents around. So the Marines called in three Commanchie helicopters, that proceeded to take out the enemy.

I really don't see that description alone tipping the scale for either side on my book. The underdog isn't always right either.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

I am not saying that I am the one to tell you, nor is Fox News (though they are the best for non-partisan), but it's out there.

It's disturbing for me to see a promissing mind believe FOX to be objective. Do you really believe the "we report, you decide" line? Then how do you explain FOX's "opinion makers"?

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

Just make sure you know as much as you can. I don't care if you agree with me on anything, just make sure neither side overwhelms you.

Damn right.

[Empty_Purple_Stars]

Originally Posted by TeapotScar

Personally, I don't like how the situation in Iraq was handled, and I know I'm not alone. Iraq administrator Paul Bremer: "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness...We never had enough troops on the ground." This statement basically admits that the United States did not fight this war to the best of its ability, which cost our nation over a thousand young lives.
...We're doomed

Deep in the middle of a very lame English paper, but on my hourly news break I saw this and I thought I would share it for clarification.



EAST LANSING, Mich. - The former U.S. administrator in Iraq on Tuesday defended American actions there — a day after faulting troop strength following the ouster of Saddam Hussein

L. Paul Bremer, appointed by President Bush as the head of the Iraq occupation, said Monday that U.S. forces failed to stop widespread looting after toppling Hussein, and "paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness."

During a speech Tuesday at Michigan State University, he said his remarks had been somewhat distorted by the media.

"We certainly had enough (troops) going into Iraq, because we won the war in a very short three weeks," Bremer said.

But he added: "As I look back now ... I believe it would have been better to stop the looting. that was found right after the war.

"One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground. That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backwards. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing."

Bremer's latest comments differed somewhat from those of Bush campaign spokesman Brian Jones, who in an unusual public acknowledgment of internal dissent said Bremer and the military brass had clashed on troop levels.

"Ambassador Bremer differed with the commanders in the field," Jones said. "That is his right, but the president has always said that he will listen to his commanders on the ground and give them the support they need for victory."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...L&SECTION=HOME

[AlKilyu]

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

And what exactly is an insurgent, other than someone who doesn't stand what s/he sees and acts upon it?

Because you really can't?

Way to bait. A sad way, and a sad way to take a potshot. Whatever works I suppose.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

The gentleman I spoke to had he and 60 others pinned down against some 200+ insurgents and foriegners. They were backed up against the Tigris river. They held their own and called in for an airstrike, but the miitary would not as there were innocents around. So the Marines called in three Commanchie helicopters, that proceeded to take out the enemy.

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

I really don't see that description alone tipping the scale for either side on my book. The underdog isn't always right either.

Point is there are far far more success stories than not. Half of those they took down that day were from other countries. Where is your outrage against them?

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

I am not saying that I am the one to tell you, nor is Fox News (though they are the best for non-partisan), but it's out there.

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

It's disturbing for me to see a promissing mind believe FOX to be objective. Do you really believe the "we report, you decide" line? Then how do you explain FOX's "opinion makers"?

You have proof otherwise? And I'm not talking about a documentry that came out just as Fox was on top rating-wise. Serious, have you watched it?

You are disturbed because I don't believe what you do.

EPS's father told her she could choose any side. Deal was she had to watch Fox News. Rupert decided to make a news channel that shows both sides of each debate. They are winning the ratings.

Should I watch CBS? HAHAHA! Bernard Goldberg is a liberal. He worked at CBS. Read a few of his books. It's not just CBS.

Bernard is a liberal. He has nothing to gain by blowing the whistle on the media leaning stories to his political party of choice.

Look him up.

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

Just make sure you know as much as you can. I don't care if you agree with me on anything, just make sure neither side overwhelms you.

Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

Damn right.

Know that there are those out there, whom are smart, that will tell you that you are ignorant or that your choices are disturbing because they aren't theirs'.