So, if you lived next to a known murderer or child molester, you wouldn't make moves to protect your family unless it was an imminent threat?
LOL, what a horrible, offbase analogy. If I lived next to a known murderer....I'd probably move to a different city....you know, one that actually puts murderers in jail maybe? I would think the threat would be imminent.
Iraq is not next door in case you're not that good at geography. And besides SH, there are many known murderers around he world we don't seem to have a problem with.
Quote:
I think you would agree that SH was a threat of one kind or another. So you are basing your position on a matter of degrees, IMO.
He was a threat to the people who disagreed with him in his country. Your opinion has been proven to be wrong (some would say on the whacky side)by quite a few "degrees" already. I'll play nice and just call your opinions very partisan and not fanatical. But that's just my opinion.
Quote:
And you as President Gilsch would have gambled the security of your nation on a bunch of maybes and "Yeah he's a bad guy but not that bad" kind of logic?
lol Again, another poor analogy. It's hilarious to watch you struggle trying to come up with something remotely close to a point. I suggest you work on your analogies a little harder so that they at least become borderline relevant to the topic. You must be an extremely paranoid person to have seen SH as an immiment threat to the security of our nation. You fell for all the BS about the mushroom cloud hook, line and sinker.
No proven ties to AQ(even your hero W said so), no unmanned aerial vehicles good enough to do much, no long range missiles capable of delivering bio and chemical agents yet to be found, not much of an army left, not much of an airforce left . No "nukulear" war heads. No capability to develop them.
He was such a threat he was actually complying with the UN inspectors roaming INSIDE Iraq at the time for the most part.
Quote:
That logic did not pan out with AQ and the other terrorists, did it?
The BS logic you're somehow, desperately trying to attribute to me? I'm not a gullible, party fanatic who idolizes Bush, so save the lame comments for someone else.
We all know that SH had chemical weapons at one time so it would surprise me if in all of Iraq they didn't find anything. However you'll notice that WOMD is plural. Attempting in any way to say this one shell justifies the war is pathetic.
I don't think you can separate SH from the "opposition"---or his plans to mitigate the invasion. IF he had WMD in any quantity he either did not hide/destroy/give it away or he did. He had quite some time to do this.
You haven't been paying attention because even his son in law(later murdered by SH)who was in charge of the weapons programs back around 95 or 96 told US when he defected that the weapons had been destroyed under his watch. The UN inspectors couldn't find them, the US inspectors haven't found them after over a year. Hmmm.
Whatever time you claim he had to destroy or move those massive quantities of weapons, I guess our satellites, you know, the ones that took those really clear pictures that Powell showed the world at the UN, must have been down or "something".
Isn't it intriguing that NONE of the scientists involved in those "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs Activities( The last BS name we were fed when nothing could be found lol) have come forward or given us any clues about where the weapons are over a year later, and even with the promise of $ and a safe life in the US?
Quote:
If Rummy did not really know where the WMD were in Iraq---then we are dealing with comic book villians who are running the country.
Did you miss him going on TV saying "we know where they are...they're in the area north of Baghdad....blah blah blah??? I have him on DVD saying it. This is a waste of time. It's hard to have a discussion with you about WMDs if you're not up to date man. My goodness, do some research.
Quote:
Also, I must insist that my corrupt politicians are better than your corrupt politicians.
I don't know who "your" corrupt politicians are, but as weak on facts as you appear to be, I'm sure they love you.
Here's some help for you. I'm sure you'll love the source.Click me
Quote:
O'REILLY:_ All right._ But on March 30, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, said this, he said, "We know where the WMDs are._ They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."_ That turned out to be a mistake.
RICE:_ Well, they're still searching._ The areas around Tikrit and Baghdad happens to be one of the most difficult areas, of course._ It's in the Sunni triangle (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Want more, try Google.
Quote:
On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Click me There's hundreds of links about Rumsfeld and what he said about WMDs. Help yourself.
I don't think the WMD exists for some of giant's reasons---freshness dating---and the fact the any one with on firing synapse left would have "flushed the dope" before the party started. This business of the shell is probably a canard, but a FRIGGIN dangerous canard, all the same.
I still insist America has the best corrupt politicians that money can buy.
time to work---I just hope the insurgents haven't a bevy of beauties to IED.
Can't see the logic behind getting rid of WOMD during the run-up to the war.
If the idea was to flush 'em to avoid the invasion, seems like Saddam would have then been fairly forthcoming about it, otherwise what's the point?
If the idea is that Iraq hastily got rid of them once they realized they were being invaded, again, what's the point? Too late to make nice, can't really see it as a plan to come off clean after being invaded (unless you think Saddam had an amazingly baroque scheme to lure America into invading his country by dangling WOMD, then flush 'em to make America look really bad.?
Certainly seems more likely that if Saddam in fact had WOMD at the point of the invasion he would have used them.
While we chase tails arguing wether or not SH had WMD or not, the fact is that he did and the UN and the world asked him to destroy them and make an accounting for them. He has never done so.
He also never followed his own cease fire agreement and continuously fired upon coalition aircraft.
These are the reasons for this war. It was up to him and his government to satisfy the UN and more importantly the US/UK since they were the only entities with the desire and ability to enforce the sanctions.
I still don't understand the desire to defend that murderous regime. I know you'll say something like "I'm being patriotic by pointing out the mistakes of my government." Well, in my opinion you may believe that, but the reality is you just sound like you are defending SH and his regime.
I know that finding Sarin in Iraq proves nothing to you about the WMD issue. I also realize that when they find, oh let say 40 or 100 or 200, you will still say "What happened to the thousands that we were lied to about?".
It will never be good enough, at least until a democrat gets into office. Then anything he/she says will be gobbled up like fine chocolate, much like some do now from their opinion handlers.
Can't see the logic behind getting rid of WOMD during the run-up to the war.
If the idea was to flush 'em to avoid the invasion, seems like Saddam would have then been fairly forthcoming about it, otherwise what's the point?
If the idea is that Iraq hastily got rid of them once they realized they were being invaded, again, what's the point? Too late to make nice, can't really see it as a plan to come off clean after being invaded (unless you think Saddam had an amazingly baroque scheme to lure America into invading his country by dangling WOMD, then flush 'em to make America look really bad.?
Certainly seems more likely that if Saddam in fact had WOMD at the point of the invasion he would have used them.
Your argument would certainly apply if we were talking about a sane person, but we are not.
The venom of some of these responses here is staggering. It's as if they have become extremely defensive over the notion that anything WMD in nature could be found in Iraq. It clearly illustrates how an objective discussion is not possible or respected here (as was also demonstrated in another topic here as of late). The anti-war crowd has gotten to the point of total stonewall fervor, whereas the only necessary response is simply, "No, one degenerated bio warhead is not enough for me to reconsider my stance, but I would be interested in further investigation as to its sources..."
The more important idea to behold here is that it doesn't matter if the payload of the weapon is 100% fresh, 50% fresh, or even at a 10% effective status. You still would not one to go off on your street corner. Not worrying about where it came from and if there are more where it came from is deeply akin to "sticking one's head underground" (references the ostrich graphic posted elsewhere at this forum).
Of more academic note, the documentation of bought/stored/destroyed WMD's that Saddam did provide should preclude the presence of this device here whatsoever...and yet there it is. So that leads us to the idea that "taking Saddam's word for it" would not have been such a great idea. We are better off to clearly distinguish what he has OR has not by direct, unobstructed inspection. If we find absolutely nothing, that is still an invaluable distinction. It doesn't (shouldn't) matter if you are for or against the current administration. Coming to terms on this disposition is crucial.
Can't see the logic behind getting rid of WOMD during the run-up to the war.
If the idea was to flush 'em to avoid the invasion, seems like Saddam would have then been fairly forthcoming about it, otherwise what's the point?
If the idea is that Iraq hastily got rid of them once they realized they were being invaded, again, what's the point? Too late to make nice, can't really see it as a plan to come off clean after being invaded (unless you think Saddam had an amazingly baroque scheme to lure America into invading his country by dangling WOMD, then flush 'em to make America look really bad.?
Certainly seems more likely that if Saddam in fact had WOMD at the point of the invasion he would have used them.
That's an excellent point. I dunno, why give the UN cause to complain? Save Face? Was he tacitly working with Syria to break it off in the West's ass? Very good point indeed---but I don't see a sane solution, except to make the West look like a bunch of crusaders.
About the only other thing I could offer is Castro's repsonse to MacNamara when he visited him recently---he basically told him in the event of an invasion they were prepared to "pull the house down on top of themselves---by using the 162 nukes on BOTH the invasion force and the US mainland. When McNamara blanched at that statement Castro stuck his finger in McNamara's chest and told him "If you had been in the same situation, you would have done the same thing."
Go figure. Maybe SH was just nuts.
...from Sony's site, the Teacher's guide to the Movie PDF file
However, the only thing he would have had is mustard, and there really wouldn't be a tactical reason for the regime to keep it.
Like I said, we already have an extremely clear picture of the extent of the programs and what they produced, when they ended and what was going on within the regime during its last few years.
If the idea is that Iraq hastily got rid of them once they realized they were being invaded, again, what's the point? Too late to make nice, can't really see it as a plan to come off clean after being invaded (unless you think Saddam had an amazingly baroque scheme to lure America into invading his country by dangling WOMD, then flush 'em to make America look really bad?
My thought is if there are/were any, they were already hastily hidden from previous weapons inspectors right? To a certain extent at least. But then again if there some that needed hiding, why wouldn't he try to hide them, invaded or not? Do you really think Saddam thought he'd be captured and be ousted from Iraq? The guy had a tiny bit of an ego. Also perhaps he based the outcome of this war on the last one, where he surrendured and was left in power. Along that reasoning he could be hiding it for later use (perhaps on those pesky Kurds). Who knows though. Time will tell I guess.
The more important idea to behold here is that it doesn't matter if the payload of the weapon is 100% fresh, 50% fresh, or even at a 10% effective status.
Go tell this to the poor grunts who tried to defuse the thing. From the wording of the press release it seems to me the thing was about .1% effective - which is rather a difference in my book.
However, as I pointed out above, I reserve judgement until results are out.
I read that some of you seem to think that you know SH and his decision making prowess or lack thereof, and frankly it amazes me.
It seems to me that this war and many of the problems previous were a direct result of the fact he was so hard to read, not to mention that he was extremely unpredictable.
I will say it as many times as it takes, I guess. This war was SH's fault not GWB's. Because if GWB did not face the problem then his predecessor would have had to. i think that is widely accepted.
Go tell this to the poor grunts who tried to defuse the thing. From the wording of the press release it seems to me the thing was about .1% effective - which is rather a difference in my book.
However, as I pointed out above, I reserve judgement until results are out.
Go tell this to the poor grunts who tried to defuse the thing. From the wording of the press release it seems to me the thing was about .1% effective - which is rather a difference in my book.
However, as I pointed out above, I reserve judgement until results are out.
I think we are arguing the same point- that even the aged stuff that is barely "useable" can wreak a lot of havoc. You don't want it to be dispersed left and right, regardless of whether it is officially past its "expiration date". What did they say? Serin is about 1000x more toxic than cyanide? So at even .1%, it is literally still like a full strength cyanide dispersal- not good.
a) Learn to spell it. "Serin" is a friggin bird. "Sarin" is the chemical.
b) No one is arguing about the dangers of sarin.
c) These is just one of many examples of shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war, not evidence of Saddam hiding anything.
Hell, even if we found buried biological weapons in Iraq, you'd still have to reconcile your position with the fact that it happens here in the great USA:
But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of your political beliefs? Afterall, you know so little about this that you don't even know how to spell one of the most significant chemical agents.
It appears all you have left is ad hominen attacks and spelling issues. Too bad you don't flag your own side for spelling when it occurs. The issue remains the same regardless of the spelling. Too bad for you.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
c) These is just one of many examples of shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war, not evidence of Saddam hiding anything.
You ding me for spelling and then follow it with your own grammar flaw! CLASSIC!
Quote:
But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of your political beliefs? Afterall, you know so little about this that you don't even know how to spell one of the most significant chemical agents.
Evidently you don't know either, given your imposed association of perfect spelling with informed context.
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
I find it hard to believe there was absolutley no fire to go with all that smoke.
That's because all that smoke didn't come from a fire - it was being blown up our collective ass by the neo-cons.
Originally posted by NaplesX
So, if you lived next to a known murderer or child molester, you wouldn't make moves to protect your family unless it was an imminent threat?
LOL, what a horrible, offbase analogy. If I lived next to a known murderer....I'd probably move to a different city....you know, one that actually puts murderers in jail maybe? I would think the threat would be imminent.
Iraq is not next door in case you're not that good at geography. And besides SH, there are many known murderers around he world we don't seem to have a problem with.
I think you would agree that SH was a threat of one kind or another. So you are basing your position on a matter of degrees, IMO.
He was a threat to the people who disagreed with him in his country. Your opinion has been proven to be wrong (some would say on the whacky side)by quite a few "degrees" already. I'll play nice and just call your opinions very partisan and not fanatical. But that's just my opinion.
And you as President Gilsch would have gambled the security of your nation on a bunch of maybes and "Yeah he's a bad guy but not that bad" kind of logic?
lol Again, another poor analogy. It's hilarious to watch you struggle trying to come up with something remotely close to a point. I suggest you work on your analogies a little harder so that they at least become borderline relevant to the topic. You must be an extremely paranoid person to have seen SH as an immiment threat to the security of our nation. You fell for all the BS about the mushroom cloud hook, line and sinker.
No proven ties to AQ(even your hero W said so), no unmanned aerial vehicles good enough to do much, no long range missiles capable of delivering bio and chemical agents yet to be found, not much of an army left, not much of an airforce left . No "nukulear" war heads. No capability to develop them.
He was such a threat he was actually complying with the UN inspectors roaming INSIDE Iraq at the time for the most part.
That logic did not pan out with AQ and the other terrorists, did it?
The BS logic you're somehow, desperately trying to attribute to me? I'm not a gullible, party fanatic who idolizes Bush, so save the lame comments for someone else.
Originally posted by dmz
I don't think you can separate SH from the "opposition"---or his plans to mitigate the invasion. IF he had WMD in any quantity he either did not hide/destroy/give it away or he did. He had quite some time to do this.
You haven't been paying attention because even his son in law(later murdered by SH)who was in charge of the weapons programs back around 95 or 96 told US when he defected that the weapons had been destroyed under his watch. The UN inspectors couldn't find them, the US inspectors haven't found them after over a year. Hmmm.
Whatever time you claim he had to destroy or move those massive quantities of weapons, I guess our satellites, you know, the ones that took those really clear pictures that Powell showed the world at the UN, must have been down or "something".
Isn't it intriguing that NONE of the scientists involved in those "Weapons of Mass Destruction Related Programs Activities( The last BS name we were fed when nothing could be found lol) have come forward or given us any clues about where the weapons are over a year later, and even with the promise of $ and a safe life in the US?
If Rummy did not really know where the WMD were in Iraq---then we are dealing with comic book villians who are running the country.
Did you miss him going on TV saying "we know where they are...they're in the area north of Baghdad....blah blah blah??? I have him on DVD saying it. This is a waste of time. It's hard to have a discussion with you about WMDs if you're not up to date man. My goodness, do some research.
Also, I must insist that my corrupt politicians are better than your corrupt politicians.
I don't know who "your" corrupt politicians are, but as weak on facts as you appear to be, I'm sure they love you.
Here's some help for you. I'm sure you'll love the source.Click me
O'REILLY:_ All right._ But on March 30, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense, said this, he said, "We know where the WMDs are._ They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."_ That turned out to be a mistake.
RICE:_ Well, they're still searching._ The areas around Tikrit and Baghdad happens to be one of the most difficult areas, of course._ It's in the Sunni triangle (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
Want more, try Google.
On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Click me There's hundreds of links about Rumsfeld and what he said about WMDs. Help yourself.
Originally posted by dmz
I don't think the WMD exists for some of giant's reasons---freshness dating---and the fact the any one with on firing synapse left would have "flushed the dope" before the party started. This business of the shell is probably a canard, but a FRIGGIN dangerous canard, all the same.
I still insist America has the best corrupt politicians that money can buy.
time to work---I just hope the insurgents haven't a bevy of beauties to IED.
Can't see the logic behind getting rid of WOMD during the run-up to the war.
If the idea was to flush 'em to avoid the invasion, seems like Saddam would have then been fairly forthcoming about it, otherwise what's the point?
If the idea is that Iraq hastily got rid of them once they realized they were being invaded, again, what's the point? Too late to make nice, can't really see it as a plan to come off clean after being invaded (unless you think Saddam had an amazingly baroque scheme to lure America into invading his country by dangling WOMD, then flush 'em to make America look really bad.?
Certainly seems more likely that if Saddam in fact had WOMD at the point of the invasion he would have used them.
He also never followed his own cease fire agreement and continuously fired upon coalition aircraft.
These are the reasons for this war. It was up to him and his government to satisfy the UN and more importantly the US/UK since they were the only entities with the desire and ability to enforce the sanctions.
I still don't understand the desire to defend that murderous regime. I know you'll say something like "I'm being patriotic by pointing out the mistakes of my government." Well, in my opinion you may believe that, but the reality is you just sound like you are defending SH and his regime.
I know that finding Sarin in Iraq proves nothing to you about the WMD issue. I also realize that when they find, oh let say 40 or 100 or 200, you will still say "What happened to the thousands that we were lied to about?".
It will never be good enough, at least until a democrat gets into office. Then anything he/she says will be gobbled up like fine chocolate, much like some do now from their opinion handlers.
Originally posted by addabox
Can't see the logic behind getting rid of WOMD during the run-up to the war.
If the idea was to flush 'em to avoid the invasion, seems like Saddam would have then been fairly forthcoming about it, otherwise what's the point?
If the idea is that Iraq hastily got rid of them once they realized they were being invaded, again, what's the point? Too late to make nice, can't really see it as a plan to come off clean after being invaded (unless you think Saddam had an amazingly baroque scheme to lure America into invading his country by dangling WOMD, then flush 'em to make America look really bad.?
Certainly seems more likely that if Saddam in fact had WOMD at the point of the invasion he would have used them.
Your argument would certainly apply if we were talking about a sane person, but we are not.
SH was paranoid and delusional.
The more important idea to behold here is that it doesn't matter if the payload of the weapon is 100% fresh, 50% fresh, or even at a 10% effective status. You still would not one to go off on your street corner. Not worrying about where it came from and if there are more where it came from is deeply akin to "sticking one's head underground" (references the ostrich graphic posted elsewhere at this forum).
Of more academic note, the documentation of bought/stored/destroyed WMD's that Saddam did provide should preclude the presence of this device here whatsoever...and yet there it is. So that leads us to the idea that "taking Saddam's word for it" would not have been such a great idea. We are better off to clearly distinguish what he has OR has not by direct, unobstructed inspection. If we find absolutely nothing, that is still an invaluable distinction. It doesn't (shouldn't) matter if you are for or against the current administration. Coming to terms on this disposition is crucial.
Originally posted by addabox
Can't see the logic behind getting rid of WOMD during the run-up to the war.
If the idea was to flush 'em to avoid the invasion, seems like Saddam would have then been fairly forthcoming about it, otherwise what's the point?
If the idea is that Iraq hastily got rid of them once they realized they were being invaded, again, what's the point? Too late to make nice, can't really see it as a plan to come off clean after being invaded (unless you think Saddam had an amazingly baroque scheme to lure America into invading his country by dangling WOMD, then flush 'em to make America look really bad.?
Certainly seems more likely that if Saddam in fact had WOMD at the point of the invasion he would have used them.
That's an excellent point. I dunno, why give the UN cause to complain? Save Face? Was he tacitly working with Syria to break it off in the West's ass? Very good point indeed---but I don't see a sane solution, except to make the West look like a bunch of crusaders.
About the only other thing I could offer is Castro's repsonse to MacNamara when he visited him recently---he basically told him in the event of an invasion they were prepared to "pull the house down on top of themselves---by using the 162 nukes on BOTH the invasion force and the US mainland. When McNamara blanched at that statement Castro stuck his finger in McNamara's chest and told him "If you had been in the same situation, you would have done the same thing."
Go figure. Maybe SH was just nuts.
...from Sony's site, the Teacher's guide to the Movie PDF file
Originally posted by dmz
Maybe SH was just nuts.
Well, if there's anything everyone can agree on it's that.
Like I said, we already have an extremely clear picture of the extent of the programs and what they produced, when they ended and what was going on within the regime during its last few years.
-"ancient chinese" curse
Originally posted by NaplesX
SH was paranoid and delusional.
Sure, but that makes him more likely to use WMD if he had them, as opposed to sitting on them.
If the idea is that Iraq hastily got rid of them once they realized they were being invaded, again, what's the point? Too late to make nice, can't really see it as a plan to come off clean after being invaded (unless you think Saddam had an amazingly baroque scheme to lure America into invading his country by dangling WOMD, then flush 'em to make America look really bad?
My thought is if there are/were any, they were already hastily hidden from previous weapons inspectors right? To a certain extent at least. But then again if there some that needed hiding, why wouldn't he try to hide them, invaded or not? Do you really think Saddam thought he'd be captured and be ousted from Iraq? The guy had a tiny bit of an ego. Also perhaps he based the outcome of this war on the last one, where he surrendured and was left in power. Along that reasoning he could be hiding it for later use (perhaps on those pesky Kurds). Who knows though. Time will tell I guess.
Originally posted by Randycat99
The more important idea to behold here is that it doesn't matter if the payload of the weapon is 100% fresh, 50% fresh, or even at a 10% effective status.
Go tell this to the poor grunts who tried to defuse the thing. From the wording of the press release it seems to me the thing was about .1% effective - which is rather a difference in my book.
However, as I pointed out above, I reserve judgement until results are out.
It seems to me that this war and many of the problems previous were a direct result of the fact he was so hard to read, not to mention that he was extremely unpredictable.
I will say it as many times as it takes, I guess. This war was SH's fault not GWB's. Because if GWB did not face the problem then his predecessor would have had to. i think that is widely accepted.
Originally posted by Smircle
Go tell this to the poor grunts who tried to defuse the thing. From the wording of the press release it seems to me the thing was about .1% effective - which is rather a difference in my book.
However, as I pointed out above, I reserve judgement until results are out.
Well...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
Originally posted by Smircle
Go tell this to the poor grunts who tried to defuse the thing. From the wording of the press release it seems to me the thing was about .1% effective - which is rather a difference in my book.
However, as I pointed out above, I reserve judgement until results are out.
I think we are arguing the same point- that even the aged stuff that is barely "useable" can wreak a lot of havoc. You don't want it to be dispersed left and right, regardless of whether it is officially past its "expiration date". What did they say? Serin is about 1000x more toxic than cyanide? So at even .1%, it is literally still like a full strength cyanide dispersal- not good.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Serin
a) Learn to spell it. "Serin" is a friggin bird. "Sarin" is the chemical.
b) No one is arguing about the dangers of sarin.
c) These is just one of many examples of shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war, not evidence of Saddam hiding anything.
Hell, even if we found buried biological weapons in Iraq, you'd still have to reconcile your position with the fact that it happens here in the great USA:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of your political beliefs? Afterall, you know so little about this that you don't even know how to spell one of the most significant chemical agents.
It appears all you have left is ad hominen attacks and spelling issues. Too bad you don't flag your own side for spelling when it occurs. The issue remains the same regardless of the spelling. Too bad for you.
Originally posted by giant
c) These is just one of many examples of shells left over from the Iran/Iraq war, not evidence of Saddam hiding anything.
You ding me for spelling and then follow it with your own grammar flaw! CLASSIC!
But, hey, why let the facts get in the way of your political beliefs? Afterall, you know so little about this that you don't even know how to spell one of the most significant chemical agents.
Evidently you don't know either, given your imposed association of perfect spelling with informed context.