None. - Printable Version +- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net) +-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Den of the Philociraptor (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=43) +--- Thread: None. (/showthread.php?tid=1526) Pages:
1
2
|
None. - A Black Falcon - 23rd January 2004 That's how many WMD's there are in Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3424831.stm Oh, David Kay resigned, saying that there are no WMDs, and his replacement says that the chances of finding any are "close to nil". None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 Eh, welcome to six months ago. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 This just happened today... But the fact that there aren't any WMD is indeed old news. So your response is "it's irrelevant". Well I just need to say that it's very far from irrelevant... how people can shrug off blatant and constant lies, of much more import than Clinton's little lies that were hiding what is a private matter, is beyond me. None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 You may recall that the reason Clinton's lie caused him so much trouble was that he did it in under oath in front of a grand jury. Thus, he committed a crime. As far as it's relevance? Well, whatever. So Saddam had none. So why in the bleeding fuck did he not just prove it? Saddam acted very suspiciously for not having any. Why throw inspectors out? Why show no proof of their destruction? He could have prevented the damn war. He didn't want to, for whatever reason. And since he cast suspicion upon himself, I do not think the war is any less justified for it. I was in favor of pasting Saddam, WMD or no WMD, before it was even an issue. We're safer without him around. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 Heh... you resort to stupid things like that. Pitiful. Well, yes, for many years Sadaam did give the inspectors the runaround. However, before they left in 1998 they had found and gotten rid of a lot of his capacity for the banned weapons. After that the sanctions continued making it near-impossible for him to import the things he would need to really restart the program... and then in '02 when Bush started up the war drums he suddenly got scared. He let in the inspectors, if you remember, and let them look for banned weapons... they were not given enough time to finish their search, because Bush was impatient and attacked first, but they were doing a good job. Also, Sadaam agreed to dismantle those missiles that were determined to have a longer range than Iraq is allowed and until we attacked they were working on that. And the Iraqi scientists were saying they had nothing. Oh, Sadaam was deluded into thinking he had a small amount of chem/bio weapons, true, and probably because of that we thought he did too... but the utter lack of anything found by the inspectors should have been a clue. For any administration that was sane and did not hate the international community it would have been... And again, why Sadaam? There are so many dictators out there who, in 2003, were far worse than Sadaam! He'd been sanctioned into a small-time dictator with a police state... the only reason we attacked him was because Bush wanted revenge for his father and because he's sitting on top of all that oil. You can't say that it's because he was so horrible of late -- yes he was a horrible dictator and yes the world is better off without him but cowboy justice is no justice any sane nation should want a part of. *edit* Oh, this is a good article. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/24/arts/24KAGA.html?8hpib ITS FREE DARNIT WHY IS IT SO HARD TO SIGN UP None. - Great Rumbler - 24th January 2004 He certaintly had WMDs at one point and would have made more given half a chance. Besides, he was did mean things to people. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 But the sanctions meant that as long as they were in place he wouldn't GET that half a chance! As for him being cruel and running a police state, well yeah. But his (in 2003; his worst years by far were until the early '90s...) wasn't as bad as plenty of others that are still in place yet we took him out. It wasn't just because he massacred a whole lot of people ten and more years ago. None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 I won't sign up for NY Times because you can't spell Saddam's name right. :p None. - alien space marine - 24th January 2004 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20040124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_3 What do you get out of this article? Obviously now their admiting the truth that all that WMD hype was full of horse shit.To me Bush would have been better off justifying the war by the real reason that he had comited horrible crimes and wouldnt think twice of giving funds to terrorist , But their is alot of other bigger targets then iraq which could have been a worse threat. But I think we should be glad now that Saddam is in Jail and the war is over and atleast Iraq will have a new future and U.S may or may not be safer. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 I get what I already said -- the lying scum got caught in their lie (which they had deluded themselves into thinking was the truth, because they didn't want to look at the large amount of evidence showing otherwise -- it might have hurt their delustions and they didn't want that...) and don't want to admit it. So they'll say "they might be there" forever, denying the blatantly obvious -- the UN Sanctions were 100% effective (when backed up with the threat of, but not application of, force). The UN works. It does its job. But Bush will never, ever admit that so we get these idiotic stories about how "they might have them" and "in the future they could have built them (completely ignoring the fact that THEY DID NOT HAVE THEM BECAUSE OF THE SANCTIONS (and US troops in the region), WHICH WERE STILL IN PLACE)"... idiotic and stupid. It's amazing that more people aren't really angry about this. None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 Why should they be? The only ones angry about it are those who liked Saddam and supported him. He needed to be gone. WMD is an excuse to do it. And before you start mentioning other dictators, I firmly support unilateral action against anyone who is a threat to us. Real or percieved. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 BECAUSE BUSH AND HIS TEAM LIED TO OUR FACES EVERY DAY FOR SOMETHING LIKE EIGHTTEEN MONTHS! And Iraq has proven that taking over a country isn't as easy as it seems... we're badly straining our resources, don't have the troops to do anything else, are tying ourselves down for years as easy targets... it's so idiotic... None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 A Black Falcon Wrote:BECAUSE BUSH AND HIS TEAM LIED TO OUR FACES EVERY DAY FOR SOMETHING LIKE EIGHTTEEN MONTHS! Okay, general. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 There are generals who thought Iraq was a very bad idea, you know... None. - alien space marine - 24th January 2004 The problem is that if there is a real threat the U.S would be too tied up in iraq to effectively respond. But Saddam is gone and so is billions of U.S dollars that the U.S must bare the weight of its costs for years to come. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 Yes, those concerns definitely are part of why Iraq was so dumb... None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 A Black Falcon Wrote:There are generals who thought Iraq was a very bad idea, you know... Some only after they decided to run for president. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 Everyone's views change after they decide to run... and as for Clark I think before he ran he was more undecided. Though he definitely doesn't exactly strike me as a convincing Democrat... None. - geoboy - 24th January 2004 Clark and Lieberman are both closet republicans. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 Closet? :) Well Clark's trying to hide the fact that he's an extreme moderate, but Lieberman? He has a lot of trouble even in the attempt... None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 A Black Falcon Wrote:Everyone's views change after they decide to run... and as for Clark I think before he ran he was more undecided. Though he definitely doesn't exactly strike me as a convincing Democrat... Undecided? http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm Now: Quote:"I've been very consistent... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26. Before: Quote:"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled." Undecided? Or duplicitous? Or too stupid to remember six months back? None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 Not duplicitous... just doing what is obviously the only thing he can, and denying that he really meant it. Kerry's done that too but he's done a much better job of saying why he voted for the war... but I don't think Clark is a Republican. Yes, he voted for Nixon and Reagan, but then he did vote for Clinton and Gore... as I said I think he's in the center. Not sure which side of center, maybe a little bit right, but to be a candidate in the primary he needs to act more liberal than he is... None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 Quote:Not duplicitous... just doing what is obviously the only thing he can, and denying that he really meant it. I'm sorry, but he gave the war some very rave reviews for someone who secretly didn't mean it. He's either a terrible liar or a terrible idiot. I don't like to say he lied about supporting the war for the very reason that only the worst of idiots could say that and hope to get away with it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he somehow completely forgot the multiple instances where he publically supported the war with as much conviction as he now claims he never did. None. - A Black Falcon - 24th January 2004 It does look pretty bad. His best defence by far is that he isn't a politician and shouldn't be expected to understand when to not talk when he's a potential candidate... None. - Weltall - 24th January 2004 That's a lie too. He was a public figure for many years and has no excuse for this sort of screwup. I'm not, and I certainly would not have made such a claim when I know I did support it, vocally and publically, and the whole world knew it. None. - A Black Falcon - 25th January 2004 Public figures and politicians are different and play by different rules... public figures don't have to watch nearly as closely their opinions on just about everything. Politicians do. Oh, and as for that stuff he said... I'm sure he's changed his mind, really, about some of that stuff. Given that part of (much of?) why he thought Iraq was a threat was the WMDs which he now knows the Bush people were lying to him about... None. - Weltall - 25th January 2004 Maybe he changed his mind. But he said he never supported the war. Ever. None. - A Black Falcon - 25th January 2004 You of all people making an issue of a stretching of the truth, after everything Bush has pulled? Hillarious. None. - Weltall - 25th January 2004 What Clark is doing is not stretching the truth. He's breaking it, beating it and raping its dog. It'd be like if Bush said one day that he never claimed that Iraq had WMDs. None. - A Black Falcon - 25th January 2004 More Iraq articles. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26KAY.html?hp This is a good read. About Kay and his team, and what happened when they realized they weren't finding anything... very good article. I think that a lot of the blame lies on people seeing what they were told to expect... but even then... the problems so long-term, so systematic... it'll be interesting to see what they finally blame. :) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26IRAQ.html?hp Interim constitution issues. And as for lies, Bush has said so many that even beginning to count would take a very long time. *edit* Clark. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/politics/campaign/26CLAR.html None. - A Black Falcon - 26th January 2004 Evil Chemistry Justifies War! http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1075117169574&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037 None. - Great Rumbler - 26th January 2004 Evil Chemisty 101: Anthrax and You None. - A Black Falcon - 28th January 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sprj.nirq.wmd.kay/index.html More from Kay. Well, not more than is in that NYT report I linked above, less actually, by a sizable degree, but more if you didn't bother to read that one... None. - Weltall - 28th January 2004 What I must wonder: 1. We know he did have them. We know he used them on the Kurds. 2. Liberals love making this out to be some elaborate Bush deception. Why then, if he wanted to start a war and he knew Iraq didn't have the weapons he said they did, did he not plant them? How easy that would have been. Obviously, if there is a willful deception, it is not based in the White House. Bill Clinton also knew Iraq had WMD. He said as much on more than one occasion while he was president. So did Wesley Clark :D. 3. The WMD is gone now. This raises one of two questions the liberal media ignore: "What happened to them, who has them now?" and "Why did Saddam try to bluff us if he really didn't have any"? Instead, they use it as a banner to rally against President Bush. 4. That he did try to call our bluff justified the war. There is no reason we should assume the best from a murderous madman who has used the things against his enemies before. None. - A Black Falcon - 28th January 2004 Quote:4. That he did try to call our bluff justified the war. There is no reason we should assume the best from a murderous madman who has used the things against his enemies before. He did? No, I would say he did everything he could to satisfy us in the last few months (within the limits of what his mind would allow) -- allowed in inspectors, let them go anywhere, and started destroying those missiles that had a range longer than the rules allowed... yes before that he resisted, but once we put the question to him "will you allow in inspectors?" with UN support, he said "Yes". I think that this greatly surprised the Bush Administration as I'm pretty sure they were expecting him to refuse and for them to use that as their excuse for war. But he accepted, so they had to come up with something else... and it was that he was hiding his weapons from the inspectors and wasn't telling the truth. Well now we know that (in 2003, on this issue) he was. Oops. Quote:3. The WMD is gone now. This raises one of two questions the liberal media ignore: "What happened to them, who has them now?" and "Why did Saddam try to bluff us if he really didn't have any"? Instead, they use it as a banner to rally against President Bush. First, he (and/or his scientists) never restarted his WMD program after the Gulf War to any significant degree becuase he was scared of it being caught by the inspections the UN had set up. Also, the UN sanctions were quite effective in keeping him from banned materials. This too surprised Bush -- they thought that the sanctions weren't working and Sadaam could get whatever he wanted and that the inspections were a joke, and that the UN was worthless. Actually going into Iraq has proved him wrong, and decisively. But Bush will never really admit that the UN is useful... he'll take half steps like allowing their team in to assess elections (becuase he has to, really), but admit that he was wrong? He'll never do that. Old Europe and all that. Oh, and Sadaam got rid of his weapons over the 12 years since the first war slowly... but without a new program, and with inspectors there until '98 looking, he could only do so much. And if you forget those inspectors were pretty successful in finding a lot of stuff. As for 2002, when the inspectors returned I think, in the interim years everyone seems to have thought that he'd rebuild... but evidently the sanctions worked, and fear of future inspections had a hold... oh, and Clinton's 1998 bombing of Iraqi weapons facilities hurt a lot too. Certainly after that they didn't make any new bio or chem weapons. Why did they act so secretive when openness would show they had nothing? Well they were open as much as Sadaam's pride would allow... but he hates us and would never just allow us in to do as we please... and also I do think that he thought he had weapons, and that his scientists were tricking him with made up programs and the like to satisfy him that they were working on weapons when actually they were not for various reasons. There was also an interesting report I read recently that said that while no Republican Guard troops had chem or bio weapons, a lot of the commanders said "we don't, but other Guard troops do"... so clearly many in the Iraqi army thought they had weapons. I think Sadaam thought they had something. Not much, but something, and that kept him from being fully open... but his hatred for America would be a bigger factor I think. He would be uncorroporative just because of spite, surely. Oh, and he DID let in the inspectors, and he DID let them in to all the facilities, and he DID start destroying those missiles, so you are somewhat off base there... As for what happened to them, I think that they either destroyed them in the desert somewhere or buried them in the desert somewhere. Probably destroyed. Quote:1. We know he did have them. We know he used them on the Kurds. Yes, in the '80s and maybe early '90s before the sanctions and inspections, he did have banned weapons. But the US knew. We helped him get it after all, in the Reagan administration and before! We knew he was gassing Kurds and Iranians, but since they were stopping the even-more-hated Iranians, any amount of evil was allowed the Iraqis... Sadaam went into Kuwait because he thought that just like with Iran we wouldn't react. He was shocked to see us react to what he did because of how we'd allowed anything in the Iran war... (remember the pic of Rumdsfeld shaking Sadaam's hand?) Quote:2. Liberals love making this out to be some elaborate Bush deception. Why then, if he wanted to start a war and he knew Iraq didn't have the weapons he said they did, did he not plant them? How easy that would have been. Obviously, if there is a willful deception, it is not based in the White House. Bill Clinton also knew Iraq had WMD. He said as much on more than one occasion while he was president. So did Wesley Clark . This is a good question. You are right, Clinton thought he had stuff. And when the inspections started he indisputably did. But they found a lot, and he got rid of more so they couldn't find it, and his production never really started up again... and the thing with the defector (Sadaam's relative who fled to Jordan, gave some intel, was lured back later, and killed by Sadaam) also convinced him to get rid of stuff. And then of course in '98 we rocketted some of his production. But after that... yeah, the Clinton administration and the CIA evidently still thought he had stuff when he didn't. I highly recommend this article, it says a lot of what I would here, but in greater detail, about how the CIA missed cues... fine I'll post it, you won't bother... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/international/middleeast/26KAY.html?hp Quote:Ex-Inspector Says C.I.A. Missed Disarray in Iraqi Arms Program Quote:(Page 2 of 4) Quote:(Page 3 of 4) Quote:(Page 4 of 4) None. - alien space marine - 28th January 2004 North Korea has nukes we arnt you blasting them ? They wouldnt have any problems with selling weapons to terrorist under the table as they are poor desperate enough and unlike Saddam they could actually attack north america with a long range missle. I think the reason Bush went into Iraq was because he was easy picking and Iraq had oil to repay the U.S in the future. It is great that Saddam is in Jail and Iraq has a new future. But in regards to the U.S safety it didnt do anything but stab a hole in your economy and deplete your war stocks and Kill 550 american troops, In the end it just gave you a small satisfaction of removing a bastard tyrant. According to CNN Poll 76% of americans dont feel any safer with Saddam gone. None. - A Black Falcon - 28th January 2004 After you finish that... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/opinion/29DOWD.html Quote:OP-ED COLUMNIST None. - Weltall - 28th January 2004 alien space marine Wrote:North Korea has nukes we arnt you blasting them ? They wouldnt have any problems with selling weapons to terrorist under the table as they are poor desperate enough and unlike Saddam they could actually attack north america with a long range missle. I think the reason Bush went into Iraq was because he was easy picking and Iraq had oil to repay the U.S in the future. It is great that Saddam is in Jail and Iraq has a new future. But in regards to the U.S safety it didnt do anything but stab a hole in your economy and deplete your war stocks and Kill 550 american troops, In the end it just gave you a small satisfaction of removing a bastard tyrant. According to CNN Poll 76% of americans dont feel any safer with Saddam gone. One other point I should have added is that you hear a lot of people say "why don't we take out (X country/dictator) instead of Iraq? Even if we did, the same postmodern hippie movement would fight it. I'm all for taking out Korea, and I feel that it will probably come to that someday without our having to instigate it. Kim Jong Il seems to have a deathwish. None. - A Black Falcon - 28th January 2004 Actually he's doing the nuclear thing, I think, to try to keep us from attacking him... that and his million man army not far from Seoul. None. - Weltall - 28th January 2004 A Black Falcon Wrote:Actually he's doing the nuclear thing, I think, to try to keep us from attacking him... that and his million man army not far from Seoul. I can't remember the article now because it was about two weeks ago, but it was kinda funny. The US sent a weapons expert over there to see how advanced their weapons production was, and he literally mocked them. It went something like this... Korean: *shows plutonium elements* Now you see we have the deterrent! Expert: ...No. You prove nothing. It's like saying since you have steel that you can make a car. I paraphrase loosely but that's the gist of it. Apparently the Korean in question searched hard to find someone higher in authority who could cement their claim, and couldn't. It's a sticky situation, but it's good to know that at least some of the organization can comically bumble when the spotlight's on em. None. - A Black Falcon - 28th January 2004 Yes, the nuclear weapon claims are sketchy. They clearly have an advanced program, however, and it should be taken seriously... and as I said their army is a huge threat. We just can't fight them. None. - Weltall - 29th January 2004 A Black Falcon Wrote:Yes, the nuclear weapon claims are sketchy. They clearly have an advanced program, however, and it should be taken seriously... and as I said their army is a huge threat. We just can't fight them. But we can bomb them back to the stone age! Happy thoughts keep us young. :) None. - A Black Falcon - 29th January 2004 But they would do a lot of damage to South Korea... there'd be massive civilian casualties if North Korea wanted them and I don't think that that would stop them... None. - Weltall - 29th January 2004 Well, if we wait long enough, they'll starve to death. Hopefully. None. - A Black Falcon - 29th January 2004 The people will, don't know about the army... it's just such a horrible situation. A extremely brutal repressive regime a thousand times worse than Sadaam was by last year, but we can't do much about it... None. - alien space marine - 29th January 2004 I remeber a old outer limits episode were a North korean agent got surgically alterd to look like the president of the U.S and then Kim Pingyong puppeted the u.s like a Pawn, Untill the Vice president killed a Korean who looked like him and was gonna replace him untill he figured out that the president was murderd and a Spy is the president. None. - Great Rumbler - 29th January 2004 That would never work. Do you realize how long it would take to train someone to talk and act like President Bush?! None. - A Black Falcon - 29th January 2004 "No, no, you're using grammar and real words again! We need to start all over..." None. - Weltall - 29th January 2004 Is that in reference to Bush or Dean? :D None. - Great Rumbler - 29th January 2004 YEAAGGHH!!! |