One day, Scott will painfully realize that "pro-Bush = Anti-America".
This Poll shows that public opinion in the USA is inexorably shifting. A majority of people now feel that the war in Iraq has made Americans in more danger from terrorism. So much for the "war against terror". It's looking like a war "for and on behalf of helping terrorist groups". I guess the increased threat from terrorism helps certain parties close to the administration...but not ordinary Americans.
Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as having said, "You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can?t fool all of the people all of the time." And yet Franklin P. Adams asserts in Nods and Becks that, "The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time."
And Scott, since when was the noble idea of "human rights" considered "anti-American"? Thats a pretty damning indictment of your country. I love my country. And I share none of your sentiments.
Yes we may know all that AFTER THEY ARE FOUND. AFTER THEY ARE FOUND AFTER THEY ARE FOUND we can look at them and have a better idea what they do but we don't know that until AFTER THEY ARE FOUND. Duh!
But THEY NEVER EXISTED THEY NEVER EXISTED THEY NEVER EXISTED so we won't be able to look at them and have an idea what they were meant to do but that won't ever happen because THEY NEVER EXISTED. Duh!
We did NOT go to war to end SH's abuses of his own people, although that would have been a great motive in concert with the UN and with Arab support.
We did NOT go to war to end his abuses of his own people, god.
We went to war because he was a 'grave and imminent threat' but he WASN'T. And all this crap that you now see happening some of us SAID was going to happen. No hindsight. It was bloody obvious.
(removed the personal attacks : please don't make anothers . Powerdoc).
But THEY NEVER EXISTED THEY NEVER EXISTED THEY NEVER EXISTED so we won't be able to look at them and have an idea what they were meant to do but that won't ever happen because THEY NEVER EXISTED. Duh!.
Well what were those drones that were found. Granted they are not much more than fancy model planes but ... and I repeat ... WE DON'T KNWO THAT UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE FOUD WHICH THEY WERE.
Well what were those drones that were found. Granted they are not much more than fancy model planes but ... and I repeat ... WE DON'T KNWO THAT UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE FOUD WHICH THEY WERE.
Read a ****ing newspaper.
They were 'found' before the war even started.
Air Force intelligence analysts argued in a national intel assessment that they were for unarmed reconnaissance. According to CBS news, this was also the dominant view at the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.
So, scott, we did actually know before the war. So stop being so rude when you are so dramatically wrong.
Well what were those drones that were found. Granted they are not much more than fancy model planes but ... and I repeat ... WE DON'T KNWO THAT UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE FOUD WHICH THEY WERE.
Read a ****ing newspaper.
You said it.
Those drones, sorry, that dro-NUH, was a fancy model plane. Could have caused serious damage if flown into a matchstick-model WTC, but nothing else.
Worth going to war for?
And, like the missiles with an arguably illegal range, we knew about it before the war. Because the weapons inspectors found it.
Do me a favour: tell me what the US inspectors have found. I make it a hydrogen-producing truck and a useless bit of a centrifuge from back when Iraq had a nuclear programme. What do you reckon they found?
I think the US was more concerned about those drones dropping stuff on Israel, or on US bases/installations (embassies, consulates, housing, etc.) in the region than being used in the US per se. Not sure if that point makes a difference in the big picture, but there you go.
I believe Bush was correct. The US has found a country full of civilians very angry with the US, so much so that some are willing to become terrorists to attack and kill our troops there.
I think the US was more concerned about those drones dropping shit on Israel, or on US bases/installations (embassies, consulates, housing, etc.) in the region than being used in the US per se. Not sure if that point makes a difference in the big picture, but there you go.
Well, they may have been. But the official statement (quoted in this thread IIRC) was that they were worried about these 'unmanned air vehicles' dropping shit on the US. Which they couldn't. Because:
1) There was no 'they' there was an 'it' ... one drone. Someone knocked one up. Out of balsa and a car battery.
2) See above. It couldn't carry 'shit' because it ... it just couldn't, due to the balsa / car battery thing. It couldn't go very far, it couldn't carry anything, it couldn't do anything.
You tell me: was this your clear and imminent threat? Say "Yes, this drone was a threat to the US and justified the war and its aftermath."
I don't think the drone was central to any imminent threat. The unaccounted weapons were (and are).
What weapons?
There aren't any WMD BuonRotto; all the captured scientists and officers say they were destroyed prior to the war starting. The inspectors couldn't find any, the US couldn't find any -- and no longer think they will.
I don't think the drone was central to any imminent threat. The unaccounted weapons were (and are).
The specter of the drones was based on a lie, and that is what we are discussing.
Furthermore, all of this talk about 'central argument' is absolute bullshit. The fact is that all of these arguments helped a lot to drum up support. For instance, here on AO there were certainly MANY arguments in favor of war using the drones to attack neighboring nations or the US. We saw the same 'central argument' BS thrown around with the uranium story, but obviously is was a crucial element since it was in the UN speech.
As for this sillyness with 'unaccounted weapons,' I really don't get you people that live in fantasy land on this one. How many times have we gone over this? What weapons are unaccounted for that haven't degraded to the point that they are useless? What is the documentation that indicated that they existed? When you research and answer these questions, you see how silly claims such as BuonRotto's are.
Plenty were destroyed before the inspectors left in 1998. Some still remain unaccounted for by anyone. Even Iraq's paperwork didn't address all the munitions the UN knew about in '98, destroyed or not. There were WMDs. We don't know what happened to them. Besides, I think the US wasn't just thinking about WMDs but conventional weapons too with regard to the drone thing.
You're all getting your panties in a bunch over a very minor point, something I said in my original post on the topic.
You're all getting your panties in a bunch over a very minor point, something I said in my original post on the topic.
Smilie noted
But, it is very very far from a minor point. It's a minor point now because we see how far this drone was from being a danger, but at the time, the drone was conclusive proof about what a dangerous imminent threat SH was to the US and the world, and why we HAD to go in and take him out.
How many did Sadam kill? How much pain and suffering? How many will live becuase he's gone from power? Also, where did you get that "30,000" number from? Anti-american "human rights" groups?
How many mass graves would be found in NORTH KOREA if we spent $80B to take it over? How many human attrocities would we find in IRAN if we spent an additional $80B to take it over? How much pain and suffering would we uncover in SYRIA? And then we'll have to spend roughly $100-150B per country to rebuild them.
So, we're committed to spending half a trillion dollars because of mass graves, but we're gonna nail a California governor to the cross because we have a deficit. But, we're going to cheer and laud our president for running the national debt up $450B.
It would be nice to topple all those oppressive regimes, and many more. I would love it. Isn't it worth all the money if those people really could be helped? It's the latter part (the part of helping, the mess we're in now in Iraq) that's the trick.
The situation in CA is crazy, but is it pertinent?
Plenty were destroyed before the inspectors left in 1998. Some still remain unaccounted for by anyone. Even Iraq's paperwork didn't address all the munitions the UN knew about in '98, destroyed or not. There were WMDs. We don't know what happened to them. Besides, I think the US wasn't just thinking about WMDs but conventional weapons too with regard to the drone thing.
So you didn't my answer my question: what would be left that hasn't degraded to the point of being useless.
Now your link contains serious ommisions, which is not surprising considering the analysis was done by neo-conservative frontline.
Just as one example, frontline claims 1.5 tons of unaccounted for VX (referring to VX produced through 'route , yet UNMOVIC points out that this VX would be useless at this point:
Quote:
VX produced through route B must be used relatively quickly after production (about 1 to 8 weeks), which would probably be satisfactory for wartime requirements.
"Unresolved Disarmament Issues" (6 March 2003), p.82
Secondly, UNSCOM verified that VX was in fact discarded at the location specified by Iraq as the dump site for the VX in question.
So really, you are going to have to do a much, much, much better job if you want to be remotely correct. It might also help you not to cite neo-conservative sources. It will consistently bite you in the butt.
Isn't it worth all the money if those people really could be helped? It's the latter part (the part of helping, the mess we're in now in Iraq) that's the trick.
The problem is that the militay option is the least effective and actually likely to be counterproductive.
Quote:
The situation in CA is crazy, but is it pertinent?
Comments
This Poll shows that public opinion in the USA is inexorably shifting. A majority of people now feel that the war in Iraq has made Americans in more danger from terrorism. So much for the "war against terror". It's looking like a war "for and on behalf of helping terrorist groups". I guess the increased threat from terrorism helps certain parties close to the administration...but not ordinary Americans.
Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as having said, "You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can?t fool all of the people all of the time." And yet Franklin P. Adams asserts in Nods and Becks that, "The trouble with this country is that there are too many politicians who believe, with a conviction based on experience, that you can fool all of the people all of the time."
And Scott, since when was the noble idea of "human rights" considered "anti-American"? Thats a pretty damning indictment of your country. I love my country. And I share none of your sentiments.
Originally posted by Scott
Yes we may know all that AFTER THEY ARE FOUND. AFTER THEY ARE FOUND AFTER THEY ARE FOUND we can look at them and have a better idea what they do but we don't know that until AFTER THEY ARE FOUND. Duh!
But THEY NEVER EXISTED THEY NEVER EXISTED THEY NEVER EXISTED so we won't be able to look at them and have an idea what they were meant to do but that won't ever happen because THEY NEVER EXISTED. Duh!
We did NOT go to war to end SH's abuses of his own people, although that would have been a great motive in concert with the UN and with Arab support.
We did NOT go to war to end his abuses of his own people, god.
We went to war because he was a 'grave and imminent threat' but he WASN'T. And all this crap that you now see happening some of us SAID was going to happen. No hindsight. It was bloody obvious.
(removed the personal attacks : please don't make anothers . Powerdoc).
Originally posted by Harald
But THEY NEVER EXISTED THEY NEVER EXISTED THEY NEVER EXISTED so we won't be able to look at them and have an idea what they were meant to do but that won't ever happen because THEY NEVER EXISTED. Duh!.
Well what were those drones that were found. Granted they are not much more than fancy model planes but ... and I repeat ... WE DON'T KNWO THAT UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE FOUD WHICH THEY WERE.
Read a ****ing newspaper.
Originally posted by Scott
Well what were those drones that were found. Granted they are not much more than fancy model planes but ... and I repeat ... WE DON'T KNWO THAT UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE FOUD WHICH THEY WERE.
Read a ****ing newspaper.
They were 'found' before the war even started.
Air Force intelligence analysts argued in a national intel assessment that they were for unarmed reconnaissance. According to CBS news, this was also the dominant view at the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.
So, scott, we did actually know before the war. So stop being so rude when you are so dramatically wrong.
Originally posted by Scott
Well what were those drones that were found. Granted they are not much more than fancy model planes but ... and I repeat ... WE DON'T KNWO THAT UNTIL AFTER THEY ARE FOUD WHICH THEY WERE.
Read a ****ing newspaper.
You said it.
Those drones, sorry, that dro-NUH, was a fancy model plane. Could have caused serious damage if flown into a matchstick-model WTC, but nothing else.
Worth going to war for?
And, like the missiles with an arguably illegal range, we knew about it before the war. Because the weapons inspectors found it.
Do me a favour: tell me what the US inspectors have found. I make it a hydrogen-producing truck and a useless bit of a centrifuge from back when Iraq had a nuclear programme. What do you reckon they found?
Do tell. I'd love to know.
Originally posted by Harald
What do you reckon they found?
I believe Bush was correct. The US has found a country full of civilians very angry with the US, so much so that some are willing to become terrorists to attack and kill our troops there.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I think the US was more concerned about those drones dropping shit on Israel, or on US bases/installations (embassies, consulates, housing, etc.) in the region than being used in the US per se. Not sure if that point makes a difference in the big picture, but there you go.
Well, they may have been. But the official statement (quoted in this thread IIRC) was that they were worried about these 'unmanned air vehicles' dropping shit on the US. Which they couldn't. Because:
1) There was no 'they' there was an 'it' ... one drone. Someone knocked one up. Out of balsa and a car battery.
2) See above. It couldn't carry 'shit' because it ... it just couldn't, due to the balsa / car battery thing. It couldn't go very far, it couldn't carry anything, it couldn't do anything.
You tell me: was this your clear and imminent threat? Say "Yes, this drone was a threat to the US and justified the war and its aftermath."
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I don't think the drone was central to any imminent threat. The unaccounted weapons were (and are).
What weapons?
There aren't any WMD BuonRotto; all the captured scientists and officers say they were destroyed prior to the war starting. The inspectors couldn't find any, the US couldn't find any -- and no longer think they will.
Unless you know different?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I don't think the drone was central to any imminent threat. The unaccounted weapons were (and are).
The specter of the drones was based on a lie, and that is what we are discussing.
Furthermore, all of this talk about 'central argument' is absolute bullshit. The fact is that all of these arguments helped a lot to drum up support. For instance, here on AO there were certainly MANY arguments in favor of war using the drones to attack neighboring nations or the US. We saw the same 'central argument' BS thrown around with the uranium story, but obviously is was a crucial element since it was in the UN speech.
As for this sillyness with 'unaccounted weapons,' I really don't get you people that live in fantasy land on this one. How many times have we gone over this? What weapons are unaccounted for that haven't degraded to the point that they are useless? What is the documentation that indicated that they existed? When you research and answer these questions, you see how silly claims such as BuonRotto's are.
Plenty were destroyed before the inspectors left in 1998. Some still remain unaccounted for by anyone. Even Iraq's paperwork didn't address all the munitions the UN knew about in '98, destroyed or not. There were WMDs. We don't know what happened to them. Besides, I think the US wasn't just thinking about WMDs but conventional weapons too with regard to the drone thing.
You're all getting your panties in a bunch over a very minor point, something I said in my original post on the topic.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
You're all getting your panties in a bunch over a very minor point, something I said in my original post on the topic.
Smilie noted
But, it is very very far from a minor point. It's a minor point now because we see how far this drone was from being a danger, but at the time, the drone was conclusive proof about what a dangerous imminent threat SH was to the US and the world, and why we HAD to go in and take him out.
One more lie.
Look Bush lied! It's obvious and a foregone conclusion now.
There is nothing to find in Iraq that will prove a threat or support the reasoning ( or lack there of ) for this war.
I'll say it slow so you guys can understand :
TTTTTTTHHHHHHHHEEEEEERRRREEEE IIIIIIISSSSSS NNNNNOOOOOTTTTTTHHHHHHIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGG TTTTTTTOOOOOO FFFFFFIIIIINNNNNDDDDD!!!!!!!!!
Bush lied.
Get over it!
Originally posted by Scott
How many did Sadam kill? How much pain and suffering? How many will live becuase he's gone from power? Also, where did you get that "30,000" number from? Anti-american "human rights" groups?
How many mass graves would be found in NORTH KOREA if we spent $80B to take it over? How many human attrocities would we find in IRAN if we spent an additional $80B to take it over? How much pain and suffering would we uncover in SYRIA? And then we'll have to spend roughly $100-150B per country to rebuild them.
So, we're committed to spending half a trillion dollars because of mass graves, but we're gonna nail a California governor to the cross because we have a deficit. But, we're going to cheer and laud our president for running the national debt up $450B.
Come on! How stupid do wingers think we are?
The situation in CA is crazy, but is it pertinent?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Plenty were destroyed before the inspectors left in 1998. Some still remain unaccounted for by anyone. Even Iraq's paperwork didn't address all the munitions the UN knew about in '98, destroyed or not. There were WMDs. We don't know what happened to them. Besides, I think the US wasn't just thinking about WMDs but conventional weapons too with regard to the drone thing.
let's look at the UN reports:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html
So you didn't my answer my question: what would be left that hasn't degraded to the point of being useless.
Now your link contains serious ommisions, which is not surprising considering the analysis was done by neo-conservative frontline.
Just as one example, frontline claims 1.5 tons of unaccounted for VX (referring to VX produced through 'route
VX produced through route B must be used relatively quickly after production (about 1 to 8 weeks), which would probably be satisfactory for wartime requirements.
"Unresolved Disarmament Issues" (6 March 2003), p.82
Secondly, UNSCOM verified that VX was in fact discarded at the location specified by Iraq as the dump site for the VX in question.
So really, you are going to have to do a much, much, much better job if you want to be remotely correct. It might also help you not to cite neo-conservative sources. It will consistently bite you in the butt.
You want to keep going?
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Isn't it worth all the money if those people really could be helped? It's the latter part (the part of helping, the mess we're in now in Iraq) that's the trick.
The problem is that the militay option is the least effective and actually likely to be counterproductive.
The situation in CA is crazy, but is it pertinent?
Yes.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
I don't think the drone was central to any imminent threat. The unaccounted weapons were (and are).
Yeah unaccounted as in you can't count them because you can't find them... because there aren't any?
- T.I.
Originally posted by giant
The problem is that the militay option is the least effective and actually likely to be counterproductive.
Yes.
Fair enough.
Originally posted by The Installer
Yeah unaccounted as in you can't count them because you can't find them... because there aren't any?
- T.I.
Just going by what the UN said.