"hey everybody make fun of the president for not finding wmd's!!!!!"
after president makes jokes about himself:
"wmd's are not a funny topic. how could our president say such a bad thing about himself regarding them?????"
and another one run into the ground:
"families of the victims of 9/11 blah blah blah...."
9/11 happened and the problems are being fixed--move on and dont dwell on the past.
if youre gonna make fun of the president, dont b**ch about him making fun of himself.
Ridiculing the President is one thing. The President ridiculing himself is fine, but for him to tread lightly on the now defunct premise for going to war is completely unconscionable. You don't *joke* about the fact that your main reason for going to war was wrong- especially when that decision resulted in nearly 600 American soldier deaths, thousands of wounds, and incredibly 9000-10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
No it's not. Totally different situation, for a ridiculous number of reasons.
Pakistan would not hand over Khan because the US doesn't want him to. The US wants to keep the status quo in pakistan, and that part is not at all particular to the Bush admin.
No it's not. Totally different situation, for a ridiculous number of reasons.
Pakistan would not hand over Khan because the US doesn't want him to. The US wants to keep the status quo in pakistan, and that part is not at all particular to the Bush admin.
Now, the current admin is to blame for letting it go on as long as it did. The admin's focus was in the wrong place.
I agree. The nuclear black market is so dangerous it is not even funny.
Quote:
But I was absolutely struck by what the Libyans were able to buy. What?s on the market is absolutely horrendous. It?s a Mafia-type business, with corruption and secrecy.?
I.A.E.A. inspectors, to their dismay, even found in Libya precise blueprints for the design and construction of a half-ton nuclear weapon. ?It?s a sweet little bomb, put together by engineers who know how to assemble a weapon,? an official in Vienna told me. ?No question it?ll work. Just dig a hole and test it. It?s too big and too heavy for a Scud, but it?ll go into a family car. It?s a terrorist?s dream.?
So what happens when one of these car bombs goes off in Israel? How will the world react to that?
Quote:
?This is a question of survival,? the diplomat said, with a caustic smile. He added, ?Iraq is laughable in comparison with this issue. The Bush Administration was hunting the shadows instead of the prey.?
Another nonproliferation official depicted the challenge facing the I.A.E.A. inspection regime as ?a seismic shift?the globalization of the nuclear world.? The official said, ?We have to move from inspecting declared sites to ?Where does this shit come from??
I think it is really strange that we have spent so much time in Iraq for the reasons of "WMD" as said by Bush while in the rest of the world WMD has been spreading so fast it is cause for real concern.
Quote:
At this point, the international official asked me, in all seriousness, ?Why hasn?t A. Q. Khan been taken out by Israel or the United States??
Quote:
Robert Gallucci, a former United Nations weapons inspector who is now dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, calls A. Q. Khan ?the Johnny Appleseed? of the nuclear-arms race. Gallucci, who is a consultant to the C.I.A. on proliferation issues, told me, ?Bad as it is with Iran, North Korea, and Libya having nuclear-weapons material, the worst part is that they could transfer it to a non-state group. That?s the biggest concern, and the scariest thing about all this?that Pakistan could work with the worst terrorist groups on earth to build nuclear weapons. There?s nothing more important than stopping terrorist groups from getting nuclear weapons. The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan, and second is Iran.? Gallucci went on, ?We haven?t been this vulnerable since the British burned Washington in 1814.?
All quotes taken from link provided by giant above.
Considering the status quo in Pakistan consists of someone who has not lobbed all those nukes, at India, that is probably a good thing.
It probably is a good thing, for a lot of reasons. But we are supporting a dictator who is becoming increasingly unpopular, so there could be some major problems.
Unfortunately, the current administration has been so obsessed with phantoms and fantasies that that haven't been able to focus an quarter of the attention and resources this deserves.
I thought the jokes were tasteless and inappropriate for this venue. I'm having trouble thinking of some sort of context where it would be funny, but I'm sure it's possible. Just not the way it was done here.
To joke about the non existence of WMD in Iraq is to joke about the lives lost in Iraq trying to recover those non existent weapons.
I would like to chime-in with my thoughts on WMD, which you might or might not want to discuss.
I believe if there were WMD in iraq, then they would have been found about a week after they captured Saddam. If you assume that Saddam knew the locations of some WMD, the US interrogators would have learned their location using (and here's the controversial bit) any, and whatever means possible, by this I primarily mean truth drugging.
I doubt that such measures in an important face-saving, world changing issue, is beyond comprehension when we are dealing with who we have about what we want to know. It would simply be stupid* not to use whatever means necessary to extract the information, regardless of international law. Period.
There is no argument that will wash with me that would convince me otherwise. They have Saddam, there are still no WMD. Therefore there are no WMD.
I think it is really strange that we have spent so much time in Iraq for the reasons of "WMD" as said by Bush while in the rest of the world WMD has been spreading so fast it is cause for real concern.
Which is exactly what I was saying a year ago before the war:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant in March 03
Pakistan poses, by many degrees of magnitude, a much greater threat of terrorism (and nuclear at that) than Iraq ever will. Not to mention that Pakistan is the main supplier of nuclear tech to NOKOR. Perhaps the Admin is 'keeping it's friends close and enemies closer,' but the pseudo-hawks in the public apparently have not realized that while all of the accusations thrown at Iraq are shaky at extreme best, they fit pakistan like a glove.
Also, what ever happened to pakistan? Last time I chacked, not only did they provide North Korea with the technology for nuclear warheads, but many in the nuclear program are sympathizers to militant islamists. If there is a treat from anywhere, it is from there. ... Kind of shows you how Iraq really isn't our threat, ay?
"hey everybody make fun of the president for not finding wmd's!!!!!"
after president makes jokes about himself:
"wmd's are not a funny topic. how could our president say such a bad thing about himself regarding them?????"
and another one run into the ground:
"families of the victims of 9/11 blah blah blah...."
9/11 happened and the problems are being fixed--move on and dont dwell on the past.
if youre gonna make fun of the president, dont b**ch about him making fun of himself.
These characterizations of what people are saying about the issues you list (post iraq, jokes, etc) are missing the point entirely.
If this was what peole were actually saying and thinking, or the flippant attitude with which they were said, then I would be in agreement with you . . . however, I think it would probably be in your best interest, and the country's as a whole, if you, and the country, were to look reflectively on the reasons why people, (including many Conservatives here and elsewhere) are questioning Bush . . . and questioning him on serious serious serious issues!
get informed!
and don't lick the arse of BushCo simply because you are identidied with that 'party'
many in that party are sick of this manifestation of the party . . . and I should think they would be: look what kind of untrustworthy, calculating, extreme plotters are now representing the GOP
Thanks, but I don't deserve any credit. All it's about is digesting public information from varied sources, forming opinions after learning the facts and then always trying to prove your own beliefs wrong to see if they hold water.
That's the great thing about internet, usenet and listserv discussions and blogs. You can get other, more dogmatic people to do that last part for you.
and don't lick the arse of BushCo simply because you are identidied with that 'party'
many in that party are sick of this manifestation of the party . . . and I should think they would be: look what kind of untrustworthy, calculating, extreme plotters are now representing the GOP
Good Lord. His post was neither pro conservative nor ill informed.
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
If you were a guessing man what percentage of Americans would you guess are familiar with A. Q. Kahn? Extend that farther,,, How many Americans do you believe thought of Pakistan as a problem in feb and mar of 2003 as giant did?
I would bet less than 7% of americans have even heard of Kahn. I would also bet that less than that understand the pinch and the deal Bush "has" with the president of Pakistan.
Bush himself was asked in an interview once who the president of Pakistan was and he said..... "The general" he was asked a followup question as to what the name was if he knew the name and he said again... "The general" and made a face like let's move on with this interview.
If you were a guessing man what percentage of Americans would you guess are familiar with A. Q. Kahn?
Few. But point me to where giant named A.Q. Kahn specifically in any of his old posts.
Quote:
Extend that farther,,, How many Americans do you believe thought of Pakistan as a problem in feb and mar of 2003 as giant did?
Lots. Remember the recent flare up over Kashmir for the umpteenth time?
What about when they were both setting off nukes?
Quote:
I would bet less than 7% of americans have even heard of Kahn. I would also bet that less than that understand the pinch and the deal Bush "has" with the president of Pakistan.
I'll take your bet on that first claim. As for the second, you're probably right. But I'll bet that less than seven percent of the people know how to change their transmission on their vehicle like I do. Does that mean I'm of higher intelligence than them? Certainly not.
Quote:
Bush himself was asked in an interview once who the president of Pakistan was and he said..... "The general" he was asked a followup question as to what the name was if he knew the name and he said again... "The general" and made a face like let's move on with this interview.
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
The fact is that the things I was saying with regard to Iraq and pakistan were very unpopular at the time and met with comments that treated them as conspiracy theories. Pakistan was generally viewed in the light the Bush admin portrayed it in: that it was our strong ally in the war against terror and did everything in its power to attack terrorists within pakistan's borders.
There is no denying that almost across the board, Iraq was viewed as the main WMD threat to the US and the world, particularly in terms of terrorists getting their hands on WMDs.
All of this ignored the facts that are now becoming undeniable.
And the biggest problem: while this admin has waged this war against Iraq, nuke parts were getting shipped around the globe in american c-130s and al-qaeda has been relatively left alone in pakistan to regroup and work on future attacks.
There should be no need for justification for a major war in such a volitile global situation to be wholly independent from the one(s) put forward by the governing administration. That in itself is a MAJOR problem.
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
Oh, and I can easily point out that here today you claimed that major information regarding Pakistan was not public, when it is actually extremely out in the open, if one just looks.
Unfortunately, often people do not look and form opinions anyway.
Comments
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i hate american double standards
post iraq:
"hey everybody make fun of the president for not finding wmd's!!!!!"
after president makes jokes about himself:
"wmd's are not a funny topic. how could our president say such a bad thing about himself regarding them?????"
and another one run into the ground:
"families of the victims of 9/11 blah blah blah...."
9/11 happened and the problems are being fixed--move on and dont dwell on the past.
if youre gonna make fun of the president, dont b**ch about him making fun of himself.
Ridiculing the President is one thing. The President ridiculing himself is fine, but for him to tread lightly on the now defunct premise for going to war is completely unconscionable. You don't *joke* about the fact that your main reason for going to war was wrong- especially when that decision resulted in nearly 600 American soldier deaths, thousands of wounds, and incredibly 9000-10,000 Iraqi civilian deaths.
HAHAHA!
Originally posted by giant
No it's not. Totally different situation, for a ridiculous number of reasons.
Pakistan would not hand over Khan because the US doesn't want him to. The US wants to keep the status quo in pakistan, and that part is not at all particular to the Bush admin.
Sure we do. Here's just one example:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact
Just because you haven't looked for info and/or found it doesn't mean public channels aren't saturated.
Now, the current admin is to blame for letting it go on as long as it did. The admin's focus was in the wrong place.
Considering the status quo in Pakistan consists of someone who has not lobbed all those nukes, at India, that is probably a good thing.
Nick
Originally posted by giant
No it's not. Totally different situation, for a ridiculous number of reasons.
Pakistan would not hand over Khan because the US doesn't want him to. The US wants to keep the status quo in pakistan, and that part is not at all particular to the Bush admin.
Sure we do. Here's just one example:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact
Just because you haven't looked for info and/or found it doesn't mean public channels aren't saturated.
Now, the current admin is to blame for letting it go on as long as it did. The admin's focus was in the wrong place.
yes yes the typical I'm not informed because I disagree bit...
copy and paste.
Originally posted by giant
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact
Now, the current admin is to blame for letting it go on as long as it did. The admin's focus was in the wrong place.
I agree. The nuclear black market is so dangerous it is not even funny.
But I was absolutely struck by what the Libyans were able to buy. What?s on the market is absolutely horrendous. It?s a Mafia-type business, with corruption and secrecy.?
I.A.E.A. inspectors, to their dismay, even found in Libya precise blueprints for the design and construction of a half-ton nuclear weapon. ?It?s a sweet little bomb, put together by engineers who know how to assemble a weapon,? an official in Vienna told me. ?No question it?ll work. Just dig a hole and test it. It?s too big and too heavy for a Scud, but it?ll go into a family car. It?s a terrorist?s dream.?
So what happens when one of these car bombs goes off in Israel? How will the world react to that?
?This is a question of survival,? the diplomat said, with a caustic smile. He added, ?Iraq is laughable in comparison with this issue. The Bush Administration was hunting the shadows instead of the prey.?
Another nonproliferation official depicted the challenge facing the I.A.E.A. inspection regime as ?a seismic shift?the globalization of the nuclear world.? The official said, ?We have to move from inspecting declared sites to ?Where does this shit come from??
I think it is really strange that we have spent so much time in Iraq for the reasons of "WMD" as said by Bush while in the rest of the world WMD has been spreading so fast it is cause for real concern.
At this point, the international official asked me, in all seriousness, ?Why hasn?t A. Q. Khan been taken out by Israel or the United States??
Robert Gallucci, a former United Nations weapons inspector who is now dean of the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, calls A. Q. Khan ?the Johnny Appleseed? of the nuclear-arms race. Gallucci, who is a consultant to the C.I.A. on proliferation issues, told me, ?Bad as it is with Iran, North Korea, and Libya having nuclear-weapons material, the worst part is that they could transfer it to a non-state group. That?s the biggest concern, and the scariest thing about all this?that Pakistan could work with the worst terrorist groups on earth to build nuclear weapons. There?s nothing more important than stopping terrorist groups from getting nuclear weapons. The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan, and second is Iran.? Gallucci went on, ?We haven?t been this vulnerable since the British burned Washington in 1814.?
All quotes taken from link provided by giant above.
Fellowship
Originally posted by trumptman
Considering the status quo in Pakistan consists of someone who has not lobbed all those nukes, at India, that is probably a good thing.
It probably is a good thing, for a lot of reasons. But we are supporting a dictator who is becoming increasingly unpopular, so there could be some major problems.
Unfortunately, the current administration has been so obsessed with phantoms and fantasies that that haven't been able to focus an quarter of the attention and resources this deserves.
I thought the jokes were tasteless and inappropriate for this venue. I'm having trouble thinking of some sort of context where it would be funny, but I'm sure it's possible. Just not the way it was done here.
To joke about the non existence of WMD in Iraq is to joke about the lives lost in Iraq trying to recover those non existent weapons.
I believe if there were WMD in iraq, then they would have been found about a week after they captured Saddam. If you assume that Saddam knew the locations of some WMD, the US interrogators would have learned their location using (and here's the controversial bit) any, and whatever means possible, by this I primarily mean truth drugging.
I doubt that such measures in an important face-saving, world changing issue, is beyond comprehension when we are dealing with who we have about what we want to know. It would simply be stupid* not to use whatever means necessary to extract the information, regardless of international law. Period.
There is no argument that will wash with me that would convince me otherwise. They have Saddam, there are still no WMD. Therefore there are no WMD.
*as in logic, not my opinion.
Originally posted by Fellowship
I think it is really strange that we have spent so much time in Iraq for the reasons of "WMD" as said by Bush while in the rest of the world WMD has been spreading so fast it is cause for real concern.
Which is exactly what I was saying a year ago before the war:
Originally posted by giant in March 03
Pakistan poses, by many degrees of magnitude, a much greater threat of terrorism (and nuclear at that) than Iraq ever will. Not to mention that Pakistan is the main supplier of nuclear tech to NOKOR. Perhaps the Admin is 'keeping it's friends close and enemies closer,' but the pseudo-hawks in the public apparently have not realized that while all of the accusations thrown at Iraq are shaky at extreme best, they fit pakistan like a glove.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...tan#post314924
Originally posted by giant in Feb 03
Also, what ever happened to pakistan? Last time I chacked, not only did they provide North Korea with the technology for nuclear warheads, but many in the nuclear program are sympathizers to militant islamists. If there is a treat from anywhere, it is from there. ... Kind of shows you how Iraq really isn't our threat, ay?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...tan#post213637
Originally posted by giant
Very impressive giant
fellows
Originally posted by Fellowship
Very impressive giant
fellows
I'm impressed as well . . .
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i hate american double standards
post iraq:
"hey everybody make fun of the president for not finding wmd's!!!!!"
after president makes jokes about himself:
"wmd's are not a funny topic. how could our president say such a bad thing about himself regarding them?????"
and another one run into the ground:
"families of the victims of 9/11 blah blah blah...."
9/11 happened and the problems are being fixed--move on and dont dwell on the past.
if youre gonna make fun of the president, dont b**ch about him making fun of himself.
These characterizations of what people are saying about the issues you list (post iraq, jokes, etc) are missing the point entirely.
If this was what peole were actually saying and thinking, or the flippant attitude with which they were said, then I would be in agreement with you . . . however, I think it would probably be in your best interest, and the country's as a whole, if you, and the country, were to look reflectively on the reasons why people, (including many Conservatives here and elsewhere) are questioning Bush . . . and questioning him on serious serious serious issues!
get informed!
and don't lick the arse of BushCo simply because you are identidied with that 'party'
many in that party are sick of this manifestation of the party . . . and I should think they would be: look what kind of untrustworthy, calculating, extreme plotters are now representing the GOP
Originally posted by Fellowship
Very impressive giant
Originally posted by pfflam
I'm impressed as well . . .
Thanks, but I don't deserve any credit. All it's about is digesting public information from varied sources, forming opinions after learning the facts and then always trying to prove your own beliefs wrong to see if they hold water.
That's the great thing about internet, usenet and listserv discussions and blogs. You can get other, more dogmatic people to do that last part for you.
Originally posted by pfflam
get informed!
and don't lick the arse of BushCo simply because you are identidied with that 'party'
many in that party are sick of this manifestation of the party . . . and I should think they would be: look what kind of untrustworthy, calculating, extreme plotters are now representing the GOP
Good Lord. His post was neither pro conservative nor ill informed.
Originally posted by rageous
Good Lord. His post was neither pro conservative nor ill informed.
Yeah . .. yer right . . but I couldn't help myself . .
Originally posted by giant
Thanks, but I don't deserve any credit.
Sure you do, I wish more americans were informed to a higher level.
Fellows
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
If you were a guessing man what percentage of Americans would you guess are familiar with A. Q. Kahn? Extend that farther,,, How many Americans do you believe thought of Pakistan as a problem in feb and mar of 2003 as giant did?
I would bet less than 7% of americans have even heard of Kahn. I would also bet that less than that understand the pinch and the deal Bush "has" with the president of Pakistan.
Bush himself was asked in an interview once who the president of Pakistan was and he said..... "The general" he was asked a followup question as to what the name was if he knew the name and he said again... "The general" and made a face like let's move on with this interview.
Sad really,
Fellowship
Originally posted by Fellowship
If you were a guessing man what percentage of Americans would you guess are familiar with A. Q. Kahn?
Few. But point me to where giant named A.Q. Kahn specifically in any of his old posts.
Quote:
Extend that farther,,, How many Americans do you believe thought of Pakistan as a problem in feb and mar of 2003 as giant did?
Lots. Remember the recent flare up over Kashmir for the umpteenth time?
What about when they were both setting off nukes?
Quote:
I would bet less than 7% of americans have even heard of Kahn. I would also bet that less than that understand the pinch and the deal Bush "has" with the president of Pakistan.
I'll take your bet on that first claim. As for the second, you're probably right. But I'll bet that less than seven percent of the people know how to change their transmission on their vehicle like I do. Does that mean I'm of higher intelligence than them? Certainly not.
Quote:
Bush himself was asked in an interview once who the president of Pakistan was and he said..... "The general" he was asked a followup question as to what the name was if he knew the name and he said again... "The general" and made a face like let's move on with this interview.
Sad really,
okay? relevance?
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
The fact is that the things I was saying with regard to Iraq and pakistan were very unpopular at the time and met with comments that treated them as conspiracy theories. Pakistan was generally viewed in the light the Bush admin portrayed it in: that it was our strong ally in the war against terror and did everything in its power to attack terrorists within pakistan's borders.
There is no denying that almost across the board, Iraq was viewed as the main WMD threat to the US and the world, particularly in terms of terrorists getting their hands on WMDs.
All of this ignored the facts that are now becoming undeniable.
And the biggest problem: while this admin has waged this war against Iraq, nuke parts were getting shipped around the globe in american c-130s and al-qaeda has been relatively left alone in pakistan to regroup and work on future attacks.
There should be no need for justification for a major war in such a volitile global situation to be wholly independent from the one(s) put forward by the governing administration. That in itself is a MAJOR problem.
Originally posted by rageous
The fact that many people supported the idea to fight Iraq, independent of any justifications provided by Bush, does not make them misinformed about the reality of the Pakistani situation.
Oh, and I can easily point out that here today you claimed that major information regarding Pakistan was not public, when it is actually extremely out in the open, if one just looks.
Unfortunately, often people do not look and form opinions anyway.