The single sarin shell.., couldn't Bush do better?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Looks as if the US may have been duped into this fiasco by Iran (aided by Chalabi and others) manipulating the Pentagon hawks by bogus WMD intel in order to start the war. Aim: to remove Saddam's Sunni based Iraqi regime to replace it with a Shiite, Iran friendly, regime.



    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...224075,00.html



    The old (1980s vintage) single sarin shell is of no consequence to anything.
  • Reply 22 of 46
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Note the title includes this "couldn't Bush do better?" The implication is pretty easy to see.



    Edit: Oh yeah and if bush has control over all of this and can wish evidence be planted at any given point, I would think he could do better. That fact actually helps because, one shell brings up the obvious next question, "Where are the rest?"



    This is what people like to call evidence. Which usually comes in bits and pieces, as opposed to the expected stockpiles.






    Sorry but I just had to reply to this one. The title doesn't imply that Bush " planted " anything. It just means couldn't he come up with more of a real threat ( that supposedly was there ).



    And no! One shell desn't imply a huge arsenal ( or even more shells ). We know that SH had WOMD at one time ( the early to late 90's ) so it would surprise me if they couldn't find anything.
  • Reply 23 of 46
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sammi jo

    Looks as if the US may have been duped into this fiasco by Iran (aided by Chalabi and others) manipulating the Pentagon hawks by bogus WMD intel in order to start the war. Aim: to remove Saddam's Sunni based Iraqi regime to replace it with a Shiite, Iran friendly, regime.



    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...224075,00.html



    The old (1980s vintage) single sarin shell is of no consequence to anything.




    Does this mean that Bush didn't lie?



    Man this is all too confusing.
  • Reply 24 of 46
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dviant

    Ha ha ha. Yep. His title just defines the raging liberal hard-on for anything anti-bush this board has eh? Bush Is Responsible For Everything? should be the liberal tag line, since that's apparently the favored tactic. A soldier took a dump on Iraq soil... gotta be Bush's fault!



    Faust I think the anti-busherkers are the ones that need a new tactic. Napels is just reacting to the frothing blame-Bush mentality thats prevelant here, its hardly a "stawman" tactic.



    Anti-Bush folks seemed to place some amount of faith in the IISS in that other thread so I thought the IISS assessment of of the WMD in Iraq might be of interest here too...



    http://www.iiss.org/confStatement.php?confID=3




    You did notice the date on that article didn't you?!?!?!?!



    I'll cut and paste it for you: "Arundel House, London - Monday 9 September 2002"





    and gee wiz . . . isn't it a discussion with Paul Wolfowitz, the main architect of both the Pax Americana Document; which lays out the Ideology behind a US invasion of the ME (from before the war) AND the Iraqi invasion?!

    (any connection there?)

    and

    Just in case you didn't hear Wollfowitz himself, I'll paraphrase: "yeah we pretty much lied about the WMD in order to gain support"



    oops
  • Reply 25 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Sorry but I just had to reply to this one. The title doesn't imply that Bush " planted " anything. It just means couldn't he come up with more of a real threat ( that supposedly was there ).



    And no! One shell desn't imply a huge arsenal ( or even more shells ). We know that SH had WOMD at one time ( the early to late 90's ) so it would surprise me if they couldn't find anything.




    Thanks! You are the first person to *get* my title. We all know that *if* Bush planted evidence, he'd plant enough to back his case. And *nobody* would know about it. And they wouldn't find it all at once. They'd alude to it, trickle it out, and then eventually expose a 'system' of chemical and biological weapons strategically located in the Mosques of the groups that we are trying to kill off.



    What I *DO* mean is that he had best come up with more then a 10 year old shell filled with an outdated toxin. He'd best find some "real" juicy stuff in the next few months or he's in for a foursome of boring years back at the ranch.



    The torch of the Republican flame is flickering. Much more bad news, much higher gas prices, or any more terrorist attacks and he is done for. Kerry doesn't have to poison the well. Bush (and his team)is doing it himself...



    When did he stop representing Republican ideals? I know just about as many Republicans who hate him as I do Democrats. Shame that he has all these big business ties and friends in congress. All this Good Old Boy crap is going to die hard, and it'll be a rough couple first years for Kerry as he has to clean house. I see about half a dozen major scandals on the horizon after his election....
  • Reply 26 of 46
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    What I *DO* mean is that he had best come up with more then a 10 year old shell filled with an outdated toxin. He'd best find some "real" juicy stuff in the next few months or he's in for a foursome of boring years back at the ranch.



    I am not sure that most of the stuff you say here is much more than conjecture and wishful hoping, but your explanation still has a very tilted view to it.



    He did not come up with anything, it was an insurgent, terrorist or whoever planted the IED. You may want say the soldiers that stumbled upon it found it.



    I would like to know what you mean by "come up with".



    By the way Sarin is not just any toxin, it is about 100 times more deadly than cyanide from what I've heard. Which would mean even if it is only at 20% of it's original potency that would be still 20 times more than "good" cyanide.



    As far as the election goes, what will you tell yourself if, after making a seemingly hasty decision to vote out GWB and during his successor's term he is proven right. You may say "so what", but that possibility has been widened by the find of the WMD in that one shell, IMO.
  • Reply 27 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I am not sure that most of the stuff you say here is much more than conjecture and wishful hoping, but your explanation still has a very tilted view to it.



    He did not come up with anything, it was an insurgent, terrorist or whoever planted the IED. You may want say the soldiers that stumbled upon it found it.



    I would like to know what you mean by "come up with".



    By the way Sarin is not just any toxin, it is about 100 times more deadly than cyanide from what I've heard. Which would mean even if it is only at 20% of it's original potency that would be still 20 times more than "good" cyanide.



    As far as the election goes, what will you tell yourself if, after making a seemingly hasty decision to vote out GWB and during his successor's term he is proven right. You may say "so what", but that possibility has been widened by the find of the WMD in that one shell, IMO.




    Hasty? Talk to the dead soldiers families about hasty. I'm one of the few fools who has enough time to sit around and make an informed decision. Not because I am a sheep listening to the news on Fox/CNN/NPR/NYT etc. No, instead I am informed because I chose to go out and get information. I go by more then just "Am I better off today then I was 4 years ago". I don't like his policies, I don't like his front pocket view of big business, I don't agree with his treatment of our allies, I don't approve of his stance on the Tax code. I don't believe in his new-religious political agenda. I don't trust him a to run my country any longer.



    So rather then bicker about how lethal or tame a single BARREL of anthrax, sarin, or ketchup is, I'd rather continue to ask him to produce either reasons for a lack of weapons, or a pile of weapons. I am not saying "come up with" in terms of PLANTING this nonsense. I am talking about he and his advisors sitting down and having a (*REAL*) talk about how to manage the blunder that Iraq has now become. History will be a fair enough judge of the long term benefits (or costs) to fighting terrorism there, so I don't need any Republicans or Democrats to doing it.



    What I am interested in is the here and now of present day and what the heck Bush is doing to make things right. He (as spokesman for his administration) has a LOT of collective answering to do. He is after all (still) the leader of our country. I for one would like more then a pat on the back and the *save your questions till the end* attitude. I need answers, and if I can't get them, I'll turn to whatever party (even the GREENs) to get a leader who WILL be accountable and who will at the very least openly admit that there are now WMDs, and that there ARE Generals involved in the prisoner abuse scandal, and that I HAVE botched things with several key allies, and that all these issues aside, that I will PROMISE to do better and make things right. Personally, I'm not getting that vibe from him now. Are you?
  • Reply 28 of 46




    "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere. No, no weapons over there...maybe under here?"



  • Reply 29 of 46
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    Hasty? Talk to the dead soldiers families about hasty. I'm one of the few fools who has enough time to sit around and make an informed decision. Not because I am a sheep listening to the news on Fox/CNN/NPR/NYT etc. No, instead I am informed because I chose to go out and get information. I go by more then just "Am I better off today then I was 4 years ago". I don't like his policies, I don't like his front pocket view of big business, I don't agree with his treatment of our allies, I don't approve of his stance on the Tax code. I don't believe in his new-religious political agenda. I don't trust him a to run my country any longer.





    Are you done stroking yourself yet?



    Quit being an ass. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make you more informed than them nor does it make them sheep. It's a difference of opinion.



    Why is that so hard for people to grasp?
  • Reply 30 of 46
    x xx x Posts: 189member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    the main architect of both the Pax Americana



    Pax Americana has been a policy of the US government for over 50 years, at least. One could even make the argument that Germany and Japan were recipients of that ideaology.
  • Reply 31 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rageous

    Are you done stroking yourself yet?



    Quit being an ass. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make you more informed than them nor does it make them sheep. It's a difference of opinion.



    Why is that so hard for people to grasp?




    So fighting for what I believe in, as they do, makes me an ass?



    Stroking?

    Maybe somebody gets off on calling others asses without adding anything to the discussion...and I'm stroking?
  • Reply 32 of 46
    /backontopic



    So, multiple choice quiz. I ask the question, you ring in and tell me which it is.



    What is the deal with the WMDs? (you must answer for the administration)



    a) They are out there, trust us! We found 1 shell already! Whoo Hoo!

    b) They may or may not exist, but FYI, this was a war to free the iraqi people and had NOTHING to do with WMDs. Forget we ever mentioned them.

    c) They existed, they were destroyed, the inpecters did their jobs, we were wrong.

    d) It is a moot point, stop asking so many questions, have a cup of oil.

    e) Why are you so hung up about these weapons? You must be a domestic terrorist....

    f) Nader for president. (also known as none of the above)



    So, folks, what is is? Really and truely? I'd love to here your thoughts or write in answers. I personally think we are getting a mix of these.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by X X

    Pax Americana has been a policy of the US government for over 50 years, at least. One could even make the argument that Germany and Japan were recipients of that ideaology.



    You have no idea what you're talking about.



    Pax Americana is the name of the doctrine given voice in the document written by Wollfowitz called: Defense Planning Guidance





    BTW, which was denounced by Bush 1



    From the article cited:
    Quote:

    It suggested an aggressive, preemptive, and unilateral approach that would "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" and wanted to make sure that America would maintain dominance in the world "by force if necessary."



    and
    Quote:

    The report calls for control of the world's energy resources and the targeting of Iraq to achieve our goals because "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."



    The report laments that the climate in America was not such that they could hope to achieve their goals in the near future without "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."



    The attack on 9-11-01 is just what they were looking for.



    You must have been thinking of the Monroe Doctrine or the policy of contaiment vs Soviet Expansionism . . .



    read the site cited . . .. it says it all . . . or rather Wolfowitz and Libby daid it all.
  • Reply 35 of 46
    x xx x Posts: 189member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    You have no idea what you're talking about.





    I don't think you know what you're talking about. If Pax Americana is so new, why have I known about it for over 10 years?
  • Reply 36 of 46
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by X X

    I don't think you know what you're talking about. If Pax Americana is so new, why have I known about it for over 10 years?



    Perhaps we are at cross-wires . . . The document which I am referring to, and which is usually meant when that phrase is now mutttered, IS over ten years old . . .1992.



    One thing about it, is that it very very cynically took that name (given it by Wolf and libby and undersigners on later documents putting forth the same ideology) because Kennedy had said that we were facing a new 'pax Americana' in one of his speeches (is that what you are referring to?)



    They took that name and did so in a cynical way, because the doctrine is not about peace at all but about 'dominance' and the use of force in order to achieve it: they were being cynical arseholes!
  • Reply 37 of 46
    x xx x Posts: 189member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    Perhaps we are at cross-wires . . . The document which I am referring to, and which is usually meant when that phrase is now mutttered, IS over ten years old . . .1992.



    One thing about it, is that it very very cynically took that name (given it by Wolf and libby and undersigners on later documents putting forth the same ideology) because Kennedy had said that we were facing a new 'pax Americana' in one of his speeches (is that what you are referring to?)



    They took that name and did so in a cynical way, because the doctrine is not about peace at all but about 'dominance' and the use of force in order to achieve it: they were being cynical arseholes!




    Pfflam, what a nice discussion. I apologize if I sounded brash in my previous post.



    I don't remember when i first read about Pax Americana or in what context because it's been such a long time, but this is how I remember the idea: ensure world peace by instituting American philosophy, culture, etc. throughout the world, and to use force, if necessary. Kind of like Pax Britannica and Pax Romana.



    That's the gist, from what I remember. Please don't ask about details 'cause I can't remember. So, maybe I did hear about the Kennedy idea or not. I didn't really read your article, so I can't comment on that. However, Wolfowitz and co. may be taking Pax Americana the "wrong" way and going to the extreme in other ways, but I do distinctly remember the use of force, if necessary. After all, pax per arma, right?



    Regards, Pfflam.
  • Reply 38 of 46
    My fave..."WE FOUND A JET! WMD!WMD!WMD!"









    MiG Jet Fighter Found Buried in Iraq



    Analysis



    The preceding photographs are authentic, originally published by the U.S. Department of Defense on August 6, 2003 and credited to Master Sgt. T. Collins of the USAF. The accompanying text, though this version purports to be an "unclassified excerpt" from an unspecified document, was lifted verbatim from a NewsMax.com article of the same date.



    After overseas news sources began reporting at the beginning of August 2003 that upwards of 30 Cold War-era Russian MiG-25 Foxbat fighter jets had been found buried in the desert at al-Taqqadum airfield near Baghdad, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld confirmed the discovery on August 5. He cited the exhumed aircraft, which had gone undetected for months by U.S. forces operating in the area, as an example of the difficulty of locating hidden weapons of mass destruction.



    Iraq acquired the MiG-25s, along with about 200 other aircraft, from the U.S.S.R. in 1980. The fighters were still in use as recently as early 2003, but, for reasons still unknown, Saddam Hussein decided to conceal his air force instead of deploying it against U.S.-led coalition forces when they invaded Iraq in March 2003. Reportedly, some of the buried aircraft were damaged beyond repair.



    ...and if you bury them in the sand...they're fossils.



  • Reply 39 of 46
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself

    Thanks! You are the first person to *get* my title. We all know that *if* Bush planted evidence, he'd plant enough to back his case. And *nobody* would know about it. And they wouldn't find it all at once. They'd alude to it, trickle it out, and then eventually expose a 'system' of chemical and biological weapons strategically located in the Mosques of the groups that we are trying to kill off.



    What I *DO* mean is that he had best come up with more then a 10 year old shell filled with an outdated toxin. He'd best find some "real" juicy stuff in the next few months or he's in for a foursome of boring years back at the ranch.



    The torch of the Republican flame is flickering. Much more bad news, much higher gas prices, or any more terrorist attacks and he is done for. Kerry doesn't have to poison the well. Bush (and his team)is doing it himself...



    When did he stop representing Republican ideals? I know just about as many Republicans who hate him as I do Democrats. Shame that he has all these big business ties and friends in congress. All this Good Old Boy crap is going to die hard, and it'll be a rough couple first years for Kerry as he has to clean house. I see about half a dozen major scandals on the horizon after his election....






    You forgot to mention something that hasn't got much attention here. Bush's plan to end overtime pay for hourly workers. Without overtime employers could work people as long as they wanted during a day with no motivation to curb this practice. This sounds like a return to sweat shop mentality to me. This would be so unpopular it could sink the election all by itself.





    http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/br...ers_flsa_jun03







    http://www.saveovertimepay.org/bushproposal.htm





    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3073408/
  • Reply 40 of 46
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    You forgot to mention something that hasn't got much attention here. Bush's plan to end overtime pay for hourly workers. Without overtime employers could work people as long as they wanted during a day with no motivation to curb this practice. This sounds like a return to sweat shop mentality to me. This would be so unpopular it could sink the election all by itself.





    http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/br...ers_flsa_jun03




    You do know how to start another thread, right?
Sign In or Register to comment.