Political Motivation

[Spartan198]

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?
I mean,take the Dragon Skin body armor debate,as a prime example. The US Army already proved that it's inferior to Interceptor vests,yet the general public,most of whom know very little about these things,constantly cries "Dragon Skin is better,buy it". They seem to ignore the fact that the stuff was fraudulently advertised as being certified to a ballistic level it had not yet been.
Same can be said about the now-defunct XM8 weapon program. Army tests did,indeed,prove that it's better than the M4,but only a little better,which provides virtually ZERO incentive to replace every single M16 and M4 in the US arsenal,yet the general public continues to cry "XM8 is better,buy it".

Now I will admit I don't know everything about this kind of thing,but I do know more than the average civilian,so I do,in fact,know enough to comment.

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

Opinions?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.


You get bad, or you get worse. That's the disadvantage of a two-party system.

[Marshal Murat]

With a multiple-party system...well...see Victonia Election sub-forum.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

With a multiple-party system...well...see Victonia Election sub-forum.

I would argue that a multi-party system is still far better than a two party system.

[seireikhaan]

People didn't like Bush much in '04. They liked John Kerry even less. Boils down to that, pretty much. Pretty damn sad, really.

[Lemur]

FWIW, Spartan, this is the first place I've ever heard of the Dragon Skin Armor, whatever that is. And I'm a bit of a news junkie, so it can't be very prominent in the media. And I haven't read any editorials or opinion pieces anywhere suggesting that we must equip our army with the XM8. So ... where are you finding these articles? Where are you hearing this stuff?

As for criticism of Bush, from what I've seen, the President has a cadre of very effective, very loyal defenders. That 28% isn't letting anything get by. When a criticism is baseless, or when it can be countered, it happens. The conservative machine is effective and alert.

So I'm not quite clear on where you assertion that all criticism of Bush is accepted as true without thought is coming from either ...

[Pannonian]

The Iraq war is stupid. Rebut that. Never mind about lies and counterlies - they're irrelevant. If the Iraq war is a good idea, then that justifies lies and deception. Just show that the Iraq war is a good idea, and you'll win the argument.

[CrossLOPER]

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?
Youtube.com is not an accurate representation of the general public.

I mean,take the Dragon Skin body armor debate,as a prime example. The US Army already proved that it's inferior to Interceptor vests,yet the general public,most of whom know very little about these things,constantly cries "Dragon Skin is better,buy it". They seem to ignore the fact that the stuff was fraudulently advertised as being certified to a ballistic level it had not yet been.
I think the argument has a lot more to do with the fact that the military-issue equipment is expensive and apparently not being issued by the military. Dragon skin is probably inferior, but apparently much more affordable and flexible than Interceptor Body Armor and certainly better than sack cloth when it comes to armor. I believe the military ordered that soldiers drop Dragon Skin or risk losing benefits, which is understandable. However, it becomes a problem when you have no way of getting the armor the army wants you to have.

Same can be said about the now-defunct XM8 weapon program. Army tests did,indeed,prove that it's better than the M4,but only a little better,which provides virtually ZERO incentive to replace every single M16 and M4 in the US arsenal,yet the general public continues to cry "XM8 is better,buy it".
This gun?
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/800px-XM8_-_Final_Version.jpg
It's apparently still being worked on, but I have not heard of any major public movement to push its distribution. The military has a habit of delaying mass production of guns. This happened with the current M4 as well back in the Vietnam War Era.

Now I will admit I don't know everything about this kind of thing,but I do know more than the average civilian,so I do,in fact,know enough to comment.
I find it hard to remain impartial most of the time. I would step back and take another look from a wider perspective.

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.
Actually, it was about 50%, and Kerry probably knew that he lost long before the vote came in. A presidential victory in the US lies in the electoral college, not so much the people.

Also, Bush's approval rating is pretty low right now, so that says something.... I guess.

Opinions?
Well, there are "nutjobs", as you call them, but they hardly comprise the majority. The majority is unhappy, that much is true. They are unsatisfied and they want change.

Oh look, presidential elections.

EDIT: I think it's time to find a different way to cite quotes.

[Spartan198]

Youtube.com is not an accurate representation of the general public.
I was just using YouTube as a general example,one being the validity of this guy's statements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwwMF6biCJU
This guy,a deserter,puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions,yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming he's being truthful when I see ZERO actual proof,ether in his little video or elsewhere.
Approval ratings (however important) aside,everybody seems to rally around anti-Bush / anti-war statements like they're pulled straight from the freaking book of genesis or whatever,even when there is very little if any proof at all to validate it. That's kinda the point I'm trying to make.

I think the argument has a lot more to do with the fact that the military-issue equipment is expensive and apparently not being issued by the military. Dragon skin is probably inferior, but apparently much more affordable and flexible than Interceptor Body Armor and certainly better than sack cloth when it comes to armor. I believe the military ordered that soldiers drop Dragon Skin or risk losing benefits, which is understandable. However, it becomes a problem when you have no way of getting the armor the army wants you to have.
Interceptor is actually cheaper,despite what Pinnacle Armor may say. I've got friends in all branches of the armed services except the Air Force and Coast Guard,and from what they've told me,Interceptor is issued to all frontline troops. Plus,I'm in the process of joining the Marine Corps (currently I'm trying to find out whether or not some past medical issues will be any issue whatsoever) already with a lot of relevant modern military knowledge under my belt (there's just not much of anywhere here on the .Org to discuss that). So I do have a vested interest here (no pun intended).

This gun?
https://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o273/CrossL/800px-XM8_-_Final_Version.jpg
It's apparently still being worked on, but I have not heard of any major public movement to push its distribution. The military has a habit of delaying mass production of guns. This happened with the current M4 as well back in the Vietnam War Era.
Yeah,that's the one. I know it's still being worked on independently by Heckler & Koch,but is it still being considered for US issue? If you know anyplace with some good info,please give me a link.
I'm all for US troops getting the best equipment available no matter the cost,but I don't agree with them being given experimental rifles or body armor just because some corporation claims they're better. If I were to go into combat tomorrow,I'd take a battle-proven M4 and Interceptor vest over a better XM8 and Dragon Skin vest without hesitation.
Just a little correction,though: It's the M16A1 you're thinking of in Vietnam. The M4 platform was adopted in '93,derived from the XM177 series carbines,which troops found effective in the field regardless of what the politicians claimed.
But you are correct. Mass-production of the M16 was delayed until the weapon had been perfected into the optimum (for the time) M16A1 form. And by the time that happened,the failures had stopped,the right powder was being used in ammunition,etc.,and the M16 series was a top-notch infantry rifle,now the longest serving in history.
Plus,a completely new weapons system seems completely redundant and a waste of taxpayer money when new H & K (M416) or Barret (M468,now called REC7) (both pictured below;416 above and 468 below) upper recievers can be bought at a fraction of the price and mated with existing M16 and M4 lowers with minimal internal changes or retraining of active troops.
EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. BG
(This one's from Photobucket -- Sorry about that,BG)
https://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm97/SpartanWarrior198/416poster14.jpg
https://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4804/dpp0002sw0.jpg
On top of that,the M416 itself has already been combat-proven by 1SOF-D Delta and Special Forces (Green Berets) operators.

I find it hard to remain impartial most of the time. I would step back and take another look from a wider perspective.
I personally am politically impartial. I neither like Bush nor hate him. My only partiality is with the troops.
But,again,you are correct. Most people think that either you agree with them and are their friend,or disagree and are the enemy. I can't even describe the amount of heat I get for not rallying with the anti-Bush / anti-war crowd. In this kind of environment we have in the US today,it's very difficult to remain neutral. I'll defend it to the death,but sometimes Freedom of Speech can be a real *****.

Actually, it was about 50%, and Kerry probably knew that he lost long before the vote came in. A presidential victory in the US lies in the electoral college, not so much the people.
Yeah,that's true. Conspiracy theories aside (I've never been one to pay too much attention to that crap),I wonder who really runs my country and if Hideo Kojima was right on the whole "Philosiphers / Patriots,La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo" thing featured so prominently in his MGS games.

Also, Bush's approval rating is pretty low right now, so that says something.... I guess.
Yeah,you're most likely right.

Well, there are "nutjobs", as you call them, but they hardly comprise the majority. The majority is unhappy, that much is true. They are unsatisfied and they want change.
Oh,definitely. Not everyone on the planet is signed into the .Org,TWcenter,or YouTube (which is quickly becoming an anti-America propaganda site). No disrespect to anyone's leaders in places like the UK,Russia,Canada,etc,but is there really anyone on earth with the right qualifications to run any country at all?

Oh look, presidential elections.
Well,Obama and Clinton don't exactly look to be the light at the end of the tunnel just yet.

EDIT: I think it's time to find a different way to cite quotes.
Like I said,I only used YouTube as a single example earlier. Believe me,if I took anything on YouTube seriously,would I have brought this discussion here where I can get intelligent responses from knowledgable people instead of childish,name-calling rants about how I'm "evil for not wanting to tear Bush's limbs off"?
Reminds me of a quote I read in the EB forums:

The less you listen to YouTube comments,the more human you are.

[Meneldil]

And,you know,if Bush was so bad,why was he again voted into office a second term,then? That alone proves that Bush supporters are the majority of the US population.

Opinions?

You're far from correct there.

[Spartan198]

FWIW, Spartan, this is the first place I've ever heard of the Dragon Skin Armor, whatever that is. And I'm a bit of a news junkie, so it can't be very prominent in the media. And I haven't read any editorials or opinion pieces anywhere suggesting that we must equip our army with the XM8. So ... where are you finding these articles? Where are you hearing this stuff?
Here's a good article on the XM8 and its variants that I've found to be accurate on the rifle itself,but has nothing "public-demand" related (the Wikipedia article on it is also seems accurate,too):
http://http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm
Dragon Skin body armor is a bit harder,because every article I find seems to be biased toward either Pinnacle Armor or the US Army. If I find something neutral,I'll post a link.

Edit: But here's a picture of a Dragon Skin vest.
https://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm97/SpartanWarrior198/body-armor.jpg

[Spartan198]

You're far from correct there.
No offense,but please don't tell me you're one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the Rockafellar Corporation or something runs the US,that the US govenment flew planes into the WTC,and that the moon landings were fake. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything,I'm just not interested in conspiracies.
Other than that,feel free to elaborate.
I knew what I was getting into when I started this thread.

[CountArach]

Spartan, the problem you appear to be having is that you are not understanding this:

People can support the soldiers, but not the war.

Learn to seperate the two and all will be well.

[Spartan198]

The Iraq war is stupid. Rebut that. Never mind about lies and counterlies - they're irrelevant. If the Iraq war is a good idea, then that justifies lies and deception. Just show that the Iraq war is a good idea, and you'll win the argument.
That's not the point I'm trying to make. War is terrible,and I'm not disputing that.
As far as WMDs go,we already know Saddam had the technological capability to make them. And when it comes to national security,having the ability to make a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different than having one currently in posession.
Would you rather let Saddam stay in power and murder innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis?
When was he next going to invade one of his neighbors like he did Kuwait in back in 1990?
Or would you rather have waited until he initiated a nuclear strike on Israel or Kuwait?

The world is a lot safer with him out of power. That's my justification.

[Spartan198]

Spartan, the problem you appear to be having is that you are not understanding this:

People can support the soldiers, but not the war.

Learn to seperate the two and all will be well.
Like I said,I'm neutral when it comes to Bush,but I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.
I'm not accusing anyone here,but if some people think I'm ignorant or stupid for believing that we've done good over there and can win this war,so be it. It doesn't hurt me,nor will it change my own view.
We both know that doesn't make me a bad person.

[Brenus]

“This guy, a deserter, puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions, yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming”: Whaw, for somebody claiming to be neutral, that is a typical Moscow Trial vocabulary from the 1930’s Uncle Joe Stalin vocabulary… :laugh4:

“personally am politically impartial”: You’re having a :laugh4:

[Spartan198]

“This guy, a deserter, puts forward all that heinous bull just to justify his disgraceful actions, yet the majority of all those nimrods claiming”: Who, for somebody claiming to be neutral, that is a typical Moscow Trial vocabulary from the 1930’s Uncle Joe Stalin vocabulary… :laugh4:

“personally am politically impartial”: You’re having a :laugh4:
I'm politically impartial,but pro-military. Politics have no place on the battlefield. When you're hunkered down in the dunes,taking heavy incoming fire,which are you gonna depend on more,Senator whatever-his-name-is back in the States or the M4 in your hands?

Being politically impartial is seperate from being militarily impartial.
Regardless of how many medals those idiots on YouTube wanna give the guy,he's still a coward who deserted his unit in the line of duty and should be put in prison,no matter how many lies he tries to justify it with.

[CountArach]

Like I said,I'm neutral when it comes to Bush,but I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman.
That did not become an issue until the WMDs were not found. At this point Bush realised that he needed to find another reason to be at war and "We love Democracy... let's fight for the extremely limited version we are giving to the Iraqis!" became convenient.

Regardless of how many medals those idiots on YouTube wanna give the guy,he's still a coward who deserted his unit in the line of duty and should be put in prison,no matter how many lies he tries to justify it with.
Do you support Bush's impeachment?

[Pannonian]

That's not the point I'm trying to make. War is terrible,and I'm not disputing that.
As far as WMDs go,we already know Saddam had the technological capability to make them. And when it comes to national security,having the ability to make a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different than having one currently in posession.
Would you rather let Saddam stay in power and murder innocent Iraqi civilians on a daily basis?
When was he next going to invade one of his neighbors like he did Kuwait in back in 1990?
Or would you rather have waited until he initiated a nuclear strike on Israel or Kuwait?

The world is a lot safer with him out of power. That's my justification.
Point 1: Saddam had the tech capability to make WMDs.
So? Any reasonably technologically advanced country has the capability to produce them. Any country that can produce drugs for its own people will have the know how to make WMDs. Any advanced chemistry class in any university will have the capability to produce WMDs. How am I supposed to be especially alarmed by this?

Point 2: Having the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different from having one currently in possession.
Firstly, where's the evidence showing that Iraq had the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon? They're slightly different from chemical weapons, you know, and require rather more infrastructure. Secondly, having the ability to produce one and actually having one is definitely different. That's why Germany, Japan, and other advanced westernised countries aren't nuclear powers.

Point 3: Saddam should be stopped from murdering innocent Iraqi citizens on a daily basis.
Why should it be any business of mine? They're Iraqi citizens, not British citizens, and their welfare doesn't affect me.

Point 4: He's going to invade another of his neighbours.
Is there any evidence he was going to do that? Don't point to 1990, that's 18 years ago (13 before the start of OIF), show me how he was going to invade anyone now (or in 2003).

Answer the above points. Also, don't talk about nuclear strikes if you can't answer point 2.

[Tribesman]

I chose to support the war because Saddam Hussein was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

I chose to oppose the war because Bush was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.

[Spartan198]

Do you support Bush's impeachment?
I believe every leader should have to account for his actions. Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.

[Spartan198]

Point 1: Saddam had the tech capability to make WMDs.
So? Any reasonably technologically advanced country has the capability to produce them. Any country that can produce drugs for its own people will have the know how to make WMDs. Any advanced chemistry class in any university will have the capability to produce WMDs. How am I supposed to be especially alarmed by this?
Exactly. All it takes is one nutcase with the knowledge to bring on a nuclear cataclysm.


Point 2: Having the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon is no different from having one currently in possession.
Firstly, where's the evidence showing that Iraq had the ability to produce a thermo-nuclear weapon? They're slightly different from chemical weapons, you know, and require rather more infrastructure. Secondly, having the ability to produce one and actually having one is definitely different. That's why Germany, Japan, and other advanced westernised countries aren't nuclear powers.
Here's my answer.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html

Point 3: Saddam should be stopped from murdering innocent Iraqi citizens on a daily basis.
Why should it be any business of mine? They're Iraqi citizens, not British citizens, and their welfare doesn't affect me.
Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.

Point 4: He's going to invade another of his neighbours.
Is there any evidence he was going to do that? Don't point to 1990, that's 18years ago (13 before the start of OIF), show me how he was going to invade anyone now (or in 2003).
We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? Okay,now apply that answer to the above question.
And in case you try to rebound back by saying "Saddam isn't Hitler",Saddam's Baath Party was actually modeled after the Third Reich.

[Spartan198]

I chose to oppose the war because Bush was a war criminal in addition to being a general madman. So I'm not having any trouble here.
Nice rebound. Really well thought out. ~:rolleyes:
Remind me,when was the last time Bush ordered the wholesale killing of Americans with chemical weapons? Oh,right... NEVER.

[Tribesman]

Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Though personally I wouldn't bother with the breaking the oath of office , violations of the constitution or any of that other little stuff , I would go straight for the treason angle , absolute despicable undeniable treason of the highest order :yes:


Here's my answer.

ah that explains a lot , it answers my question...Where have you been for the last 5 years ?

Please keep up , that answer you linked to has long been established as bollox , even at the time it was given it was widely described as bollox .
Have you perhaps been living the life of a hermit ?
Shut off from the world in total isolation maybe ?
Can you tell what year it is ?


We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
No of course not , thats why there was no worries about the Danzig problem and no countries said they would intervene in the event of a German invasion of Poland:dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

Remind me,when was the last time Bush ordered the wholesale killing of Americans with chemical weapons? Oh,right... NEVER.
Oh dear , another one who can line up behind Mars to read the treaties on war crimes :coffeenews:
Would you like to debate war crimes Spartan ?
Would you like to limit it to Americas involvement in Saddams War crimes or would you like to focus on Bush's war crimes ?


Really well thought out.
Given the content of your posts so far in this topic I would say that you appear to be largely devoid of anything mildly relating to the thought process.:yes:

[CountArach]

I believe every leader should have to account for his actions. Give me a link to the details of a possible Bush impeachment,then I can answer that.
As always wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush) provides the answers.

[Quirinus]

Why is it that everyone assumes [...] everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?
Agree with most of your opinions, but this I must disagree with. Michael Moore is the most obvious case in point. I'm not sure who hates Michael Moore more, the 'right' he lambasts or the 'left' he's supposed to be representing. We have Bill O'Reilly and John Ashcroft on one end and Michael Moore on the other.

IMO.

[Adrian II]

Why is it that everyone assumes everything pro-Bush / pro-war is lies without any proof beyond what some nutjob says on a You Tube video or something,but everything anti-Bush / anti-war is always truth even if it ends up proven to be a lie?Why does everyone think that everyone else is on the Internet calling everyone else a liar?

Wait, make that everyone minus 1. :coffeenews:

[Pannonian]

Exactly. All it takes is one nutcase with the knowledge to bring on a nuclear cataclysm.
Erm, the WMDs I was talking about was chemical weapons, which any university chemistry lab can produce. Heck, people can download instructions from the internet and make their own using products available off the shelf. A nuclear weapon requires huge intellectual and physical infrastructure to produce, which Iraq lacked.


Here's my answer.
http://wnww.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ationalsecurity/disarm.html (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html)
Hang on. Isn't that the stuff that was discredited long ago?


Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.
It hurts me to have to pay for a war that we did not need. Perhaps you wish to bring your liberal dream to all the peoples of the world, but my first concern is the bottom line.


We didn't know Nazi Germany was going to invade Poland prior to 1939,either,did we? Okay,now apply that answer to the above question.
And in case you try to rebound back by saying "Saddam isn't Hitler",Saddam's Baath Party was actually modeled after the Third Reich.
I don't really care what it's modelled on, I only care about its capabilities and known intentions. I don't really wish to make war on every two-bit neo-Nazi in the UK, because I know their capabilities are ridiculously low and they can be safely ignored. Show me how Iraq was a threat to anyone in 2003.

[Spartan198]

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Though personally I wouldn't bother with the breaking the oath of office , violations of the constitution or any of that other little stuff , I would go straight for the treason angle , absolute despicable undeniable treason of the highest order :yes:
First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be. The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff. You wanna talk about treason,add the US Media to the list of offenders. I don't believe everything I hear from them right off the bat.

ah that explains a lot , it answers my question...Where have you been for the last 5 years ?
Please keep up , that answer you linked to has long been established as bollox , even at the time it was given it was widely described as bollox .
Have you perhaps been living the life of a hermit ?
Shut off from the world in total isolation maybe ?
Can you tell what year it is ?
Same response as above applies to the hermit question. Yes,I know what year it is. You don't have to be so condescending about it.
And if documents like that from my government are rubbish,how can the Downing Street Memo (of which the authenticity is disputed) or the Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq Memo (which,if authentic,proves the UK was just as intent on invading as the US was and should implicate the UK Prime Minister,as well) not be considered the same thing?

No of course not , thats why there was no worries about the Danzig problem and no countries said they would intervene in the event of a German invasion of Poland:dizzy2:
Exactly right. Just means that those in power expected him to attack a neighbor in the near future.

[Spartan198]

Agree with most of your opinions, but this I must disagree with. Michael Moore is the most obvious case in point. I'm not sure who hates Michael Moore more, the 'right' he lambasts or the 'left' he's supposed to be representing. We have Bill O'Reilly and John Ashcroft on one end and Michael Moore on the other.

IMO.
Michael Moore... I shudder at the mere mention of his name.

[Beirut]

Michael Moore... I shudder at the mere mention of his name.

Love him or hate him, he defends the one essential quality of the American way of life. :unitedstates:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/FirstAmendment.png

[Watchman]

First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be. The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff. You wanna talk about treason,add the US Media to the list of offenders."What the media reports of the world disagrees with what I want to believe, so obviously the media is wrong and/or lying."
:dizzy2:
Hålla mig handen.

[Tribesman]

don't really care what it's modelled on
Oh please care Pann , if only to care that is modelled on the social democratic party not the socialist workers party , now of course such little things shouldn't get in the way of ludicrous claims being made , but I do wonder how the Baath party can be modelled on the third reich when the third reich banned the party that it is modelled on :inquisitive:


First off,I don't watch the damn news anymore because it's just as biased as everyone else seems to be.
Xiahou has a new disciple :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


The media is destroying more and more public support everyday because all they can report is the bad stuff.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
woud you like more cutesy fluffy bunny stories ?
Hey Spartan , perhaps if there was any good news about Iraq the media might be able to report it more...but you see they have been stung rather badly by repeatedly doing "good news " stories they were fed that turned out to be complete bollox .


And if documents like that from my government are rubbish,how can the Downing Street Memo (of which the authenticity is disputed) or the Bush-Blair 2003 Iraq Memo (which,if authentic,proves the UK was just as intent on invading as the US was and should implicate the UK Prime Minister,as well) not be considered the same thing?

Sorry , that appears to make no sense ...can you explain it please ?
If the downing street memo is disputed then how can you explain that Blair does not dispute its authenticity ?


Exactly right. Just means that those in power expected him to attack a neighbor in the near future.
Whereas Saddam had been neutered and they knew that he couldn't attack any of his neighbours any more .

[Pannonian]

It's certainly interesting to read a diehard neocon at a time when even the original diehard neocons had already abandoned their original stories as untenable.

[Spartan198]

That did not become an issue until the WMDs were not found. At this point Bush realised that he needed to find another reason to be at war and "We love Democracy... let's fight for the extremely limited version we are giving to the Iraqis!" became convenient.
He'd been organizing mass murderings of innocent people years before even the first Gulf War. There's proof he did it during both Desert Shield and Desert Storm in Kuwait,as well. Maybe it hadn't been officially recognized,but he was still a war criminal nonetheless.


Do you support Bush's impeachment?
I read over that entire article (I'll look into the main articles a little later on,because there's a lot to read),and I agree with everything but the following:
2003 Invasion & Justification for Invasion -If we hadn't have gone in in 2003,we'd have eventually done it anyway. Just because there might not have been concrete proof for the United Nations of nuclear weapons in Iraq wouldn't necessarily mean that Saddam didn't have them. If he didn't,why refuse entry to UN weapons inspectors? Seems kind of redundent to me. Besides,Saddam had built up a nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. In the 13 years (as of 2003) since his defeat in that conflict,he could easily have rebuilt said program. And if AKs,T-72s,MiGs,serin and mustard gas aren't weapons of mass destruction,what are they? Childrens' toys?
UN Charter - I don't believe my government needs UN permission to act in preemptive strike when there are possible foriegn or domestic threats to the US,our allies,and our interests.

The Constitutionality for Invasion is presently irrelevant because it's been dismissed by the Federal court,with said dismissal upheld in appeal. We'll see what happens with further appeals.

I'm undecided on the Unlawful Combatants issue because Al Qaeda aren't soldiers no matter what they claim,and so when captured are detainees,not prisoners of war,so the Geneva Convention doesn't legally apply to them. But I am against torture,to make that crystal clear,nor am I disputing torture and abuse cases because these horrific acts have occurred. Though I don't believe Guantanamo Bay should be closed,simply because these individuals are far too dangerous to keep on US soil.

So with a concensus of 5 agreements,3 disagreements,and 1 undecided (in addition to the 1 currently irrelevant) -- Yes,I do believe there is grounds for impeachment of President Bush.

[Spartan198]

Love him or hate him, he defends the one essential quality of the American way of life. :unitedstates:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/horsesass/FirstAmendment.png
I have to reluctantly agree with you on that.

[Watchman]

Besides,Saddam had built up a nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. In the 13 years (as of 2003) since his defeat in that conflict,he could easily have rebuilt said program.With what resources - material aid from the Martians ?
And if AKs,T-72s,MiGs,serin and mustard gas aren't weapons of mass destruction,what are they? Childrens' toys?Of the whole list only the two latter don't rank as conventional weapons, genius. Plus last I heard there was zero evidence of Saddam having had stores of chemical weapons that hadn't gone well past their "shelf life"...

UN Charter - I don't believe my government needs UN permission to act in preemptive strike when there are possible foriegn or domestic threats to the US,our allies,and our interests.Funny thing is, IIRC it tried to get it anyway...

I'm undecided on the Unlawful Combatants issue because Al Qaeda aren't soldiers no matter what they claim,and so when captured are detainees,not prisoners of war,so the Geneva Convention doesn't legally apply to them.An extremely dubious and tendentious interpretation AFAIK only recognised by the Bush adminstration and its apologists...

[Quirinus]

Just because there might not have been concrete proof for the United Nations of nuclear weapons in Iraq wouldn't necessarily mean that Saddam didn't have them. If he didn't,why refuse entry to UN weapons inspectors? Seems kind of redundent to me..
I don't know.... if a random security guy wanted to do an anal probe to you to check for dangerous objects in your rectum, would you acquecise just because you don't have dangerous objects in your rectum? Seems a flawed argument to me.

[Spartan198]

Oh please care Pann , if only to care that is modelled on the social democratic party not the socialist workers party , now of course such little things shouldn't get in the way of ludicrous claims being made , but I do wonder how the Baath party can be modelled on the third reich when the third reich banned the party that it is modelled on :inquisitive:
The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? :inquisitive:

woud you like more cutesy fluffy bunny stories ?
Hey Spartan , perhaps if there was any good news about Iraq the media might be able to report it more...but you see they have been stung rather badly by repeatedly doing "good news " stories they were fed that turned out to be complete bollox .
You can take your bunnies,skin them,and eat them!
Take this as an example: The media is in love with IEDs. They go on and on about them... Soldier killed by IED today,over and over again seemingly every week. Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice? Or how 8 out of 10 IEDs are safely disarmed on a regular basis without injury to troops or civilians? Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

Sorry , that appears to make no sense ...can you explain it please ?
If the downing street memo is disputed then how can you explain that Blair does not dispute its authenticity ?
Well,since everyone seems to be throwing Wikipedia at me,this is taken from the article on the memo itself (I left the heading in so its easy to find in the article itself:


Veracity of the memo
Following the advice of company lawyers, Michael Smith, the journalist who first reported on the Downing Street Memo, has said that he protected the identity of his source by reproducing all documents and returning the 'originals' back to the source. In some cases, a document was retyped from a photocopy, and the photocopy destroyed.[46] This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it, and it has been unofficially confirmed to various news organizations, including the Washington Post, NBC, The Sunday Times, and the LA Times

And this from the article on the Blair-Bush Memo:

It has become controversial for its content, which shows Bush floating the idea of painting a U-2 spyplane in UN colors and letting it fly low over Iraq to provoke the then-leader Saddam Hussein to shoot it down, providing a pretext for America and Britain's subsequent invasion. It also shows the two making a secret deal to carry out said invasion regardless of whether weapons of mass destruction were discovered by UN weapons inspectors, in direct contradiction with statements Blair made to Parliament afterwards that Saddam would be given a final chance to disarm.


Whereas Saddam had been neutered and they knew that he couldn't attack any of his neighbours any more .
Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.

[Lemur]

Never mind. I was going to respond to the conflation of chemical, biological and nuclear WMDs, but I see others have addressed it, only to be dismissed by Spartan for reasons that passeth understanding. Carry on.

[Watchman]

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party? :inquisitive: Reading Comprehension 101 time... what part of "the party that it is modelled on" did you miss ? The Baath was (or rather is - there's another branch in Syria IIRC) one of the so-called "Arab Socialist" parties that sprung up in the Mideast like mushrooms after rain post WW2, if memory serves.

Take this as an example: The media is in love with IEDs. They go on and on about them... Soldier killed by IED today,over and over again seemingly every week. Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice? Or how 8 out of 10 IEDs are safely disarmed on a regular basis without injury to troops or civilians?The tingling of my Common Sense suggests you don't quite understand the whole IED issue. They're traps, pure and simple. One goes off, it can take out a whole damn tank if there's enough explosives. The survivors aren't alive "thanks to the [casualties'] sacrifice", but simply by sheer luck and/or the blast not having been powerful enough to kill the whole lot.

But above all the issue with the IEDs is that they're dirt cheap, easy to make and, hence, ubiquitous, whereas effective countermeasures are conversely complicated, expensive, difficult to employ in the field, and always playing catch-up with the ever more creative bomb-makers.

The point is, it matters very little to the insurgents even if 80% of their nasty little toys get found and safely disposed of; the rest still net quite enough results to keep the balance very much positive.

Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?Because such shiny bits doesn't matter a **** compared to all the dead people and continuing violence, nevermind now all the funny PTSD issues with returning vets, Vietnam style ?

Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.You fail history class. Go read.

[Pannonian]

Friend, you seem to be mixing your biological with your nuclear WMDs. Also, having the "ability to make" something is a tricky declaration to parse. I can download instructions for building a thermonuclear device on the internet. Does that mean I have the ability to make it?

I especially liked the one that noted the need to have a centrifugal device to concentrate the material to render it weapons grade, and suggested putting the uranium into a bucket, attaching the bucket to a rope, then swinging the bucket around in the garden really, really, fast.

[Tribesman]

The Third Reich banned Saddam Hussein's Baath Party?
I see your trouble with thinking extends to trouble with reading too :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Why don't they talk about how the rest of those fallen warriors' 8 - 10 man squads are still alive thanks to his / her sacrifice?
Oh so you want the news to consist of lots of "soldier didn't die today" stories and ignore the ones that die .
Its funny isn't it , you throw aout a statistic about how many IEDs are safely dealt with , yet complain that the media doesn't cover it , but you can find that story repeated throughout the media .


Why don't they talk about the Medals of Honor or Silver Stars that have so far been awarded for bravery,selfless action,and service beyond the call of duty? Why don't they talk about that?

Blimey you really walk into them don't ya ..can you enlighten me about how the media ran and ran with the brave selfless poster boy story and how he gave up a fortune to die bravely fighting the evil terrorists...until it emerged that it was crap , he was shot by his mates and the authorities knew it all the time they were pushing the hero nonsense to the media .


Well,since everyone seems to be throwing Wikipedia at me,this is taken from the article on the memo itself
trouble reading again eh ...
This has led some to question the document's authenticity, but no official source has questioned it,..hmmm no official source has questioned it , so that leaves the conspiracy nuts who still question it , the conspiracy nuts who think everything they read that is negative about the Iraqi fiasco is invented by the media.


And this from the article on the Blair-Bush Memo:

Woohoo :balloon2: well done you showed Blair to be a prick just like Bush , now all you have to do is find someone that doesn't think Blair is a prick and then you can argue with them :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:


Nazi Germany had been "neutered" after their defeat in WWI,too.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Too funny

[Spartan198]

Friend, you seem to be mixing your biological with your nuclear WMDs. Also, having the "ability to make" something is a tricky declaration to parse. I can download instructions for building a thermonuclear device on the internet. Does that mean I have the ability to make it?
Valid point,but after 9/11 here in the US (I should really change my location as I'm not fooling anyone,am I?),even downloading the instructions can constitute a threat. Granted,that doesn't necessarily apply to Iraq,but Saddam did have an active nuclear weapons program prior to the '91 invasion. So there's no doubt that he had the capability to make nuclear weapons.

Also, please note that WMDs need delivery systems. A two-ton nuclear warhead isn't much good to you if all you've got is a Datsun pickup truck. As far as delivering biological weapons goes, check out the long litany of failures from the Aum Shinrikyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo) terrorist cult. Boy oh boy did they try to get bio-weapons up and running. It's harder than most people think.
You do make good points. But even without a sky-borne delivery system,all that's needed to transport a warhead as such is a triple-axel truck with a covering. With the similarity in ethnicity (I'm not a racist calling all Middle Eastern people the same,it's just that there's been a lot of inbreeding among the various nationalities over the generations. Believe me,my father is racist and I grew up hating that about him. That's the honest truth.),it'd be easy for a small group of soldiers to truck it into a major Kuwaiti city and set it off. Look how easy the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen (I think) was.

But regardless of being chemical,biological,or nuclear,a WMD is still a WMD,you know?

[Tribesman]

With the similarity in ethnicity (I'm not a racist calling all Middle Eastern people the same,it's just that there's been a lot of inbreeding among the various nationalities over the generations.
This just gets funnier and funnier , keep it up Spartan you are a real scream .

[Watchman]

But regardless of being chemical,biological,or nuclear,a WMD is still a WMD,you know?
And ? A lot of states have them. Saddam's, as it happens, were kind of past the "best before" date too.

And do I really even need to explain to you how dumb and surreal the whole "Iraqi suicide squad drives a ZOMG nuke into Kuwait!!1!!!!" is ?

[Spartan198]

And ? A lot of states have them. Saddam's, as it happens, were kind of past the "best before" date too.
True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat. Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas? Come on,police use that stuff specifically to take felons and offenders alive. But a lot of chemical and biological agents can still cause severe damage to the environment and life itself,even way past the expiration date.

And do I really even need to explain to you how dumb and surreal the whole "Iraqi suicide squad drives a ZOMG nuke into Kuwait!!1!!!!" is ?
It does sound crazy,but it works nonetheless. Look again at the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the WTC back in '91 or '92,I think.
Siucide squad drives a bomb someplace in a truck or van and blows that someplace up.





I fear this is starting to become another pro-war/anti-war debate,which had nothing to do with my original motivation here. :shame:

[Vladimir]

Oooh, Google is nice.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

[Watchman]

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat.The interwar period AFAIK, unless you count irritants like tear gas (saw some use in 'Nam AFAIK) and "collateral damage" effects from, say Agent Orange.

You know why armies don't normally bother even trying that gunk against each other ? Because since WW1 every single properly equipped and trained one made sure its soldiers knew the basic countermeasures and had at least rudimentary protective equipement, which by itself already pretty much negates the purely military usefulness of biochemical weapons. Quite simply, the results are not worth the trouble and effort that goes into deploying the stuff in combat.

Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas? Come on,police use that stuff specifically to take felons and offenders alive. But a lot of chemical and biological agents can still cause severe damage to the environment and life itself,even way past the expiration date.Did you know, the spiral into the nightmarish gas warfare of WW1 actualy escalated from the use of tear gas against bunkers...?

It does sound crazy,but it works nonetheless. Look again at the Marine barracks in Beruit and the bombing of the WTC back in '91 or '92,I think.
Siucide squad drives a bomb someplace in a truck or van and blows that someplace up.Terrorist movements also have a lot easier time finding people to carry out such kamikaze attacks with than regular armies... Not to mention that it's *way* easier to put together enough conventional explosives "on scene" than drive them, nevermind now a damn nuke, over the bloody border - especially one as tense as that between Iraq and Kuwait.

The point of the exercise would also be very questionable anyway.

I fear this is starting to become another pro-war/anti-war debate,which had nothing to do with my original motivation here. :shame::inquisitive: Given that your original topic was all about politics in general and those around the Iraq war in particular, I don't see where you get away trying to play martyr.
Don't tell me you're surprised the discussion soon veered this way, especially as IIRC you've been one of the main instigators of that.

[Furious Mental]

Yes, as far as modern battlefield use goes chemical weapons are not much more than a temporary area denial weapon, like a mine field that the wind will blow away after a couple of days.

On which topic, land mines are a much nastier and more indiscriminate weapon. But the weapons on which the most attention should be focused are small arms, because they are the easiest to obtain and use and hence make the biggest contribution to conflicts, and are most extensively used to spread terror and cause dislocation (which is by far the biggest killer). Look at the biggest humanitarian disasters in Africa- Darfur, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, etc. Not caused by whizz bang jet fighters, or nuclear submarines, poison gas or any of the other stuff that tends to make headlines as far as arms proliferation goes.

[Watchman]

Yeah, there's a reason the human-rights types tend to regard "small arms" as WMDs - and easily the most factually lethal ones around too.

Then again, something like 85% of the killing in the Rwandan genocide was done with weapons which were essentially Medieval - spiky clubs and machetes.

[HoreTore]

No offense,but please don't tell me you're one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the Rockafellar Corporation or something runs the US,that the US govenment flew planes into the WTC,and that the moon landings were fake. I'm not trying to discourage you or anything,I'm just not interested in conspiracies.
Other than that,feel free to elaborate.
I knew what I was getting into when I started this thread.

Conspiracy theories? What?

Bush got elected with 62,040,610 votes. With a population of 303,824,646, that means Bush got elected by just 20,4% of the population...

[Kralizec]

I take it you're in favour of extending suffrage to toddlers, HoreTore? :rolleyes:

[Tribesman]

True,but when have US or British troops used chemical or biological weapons in combat.
Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times :dizzy2:


Even freaking tear gas is illegal under international law. Tear gas?
Is it ?
Yeah I suppose it is if all parties have signed and ratified the treaty and all the opt out clauses many states added don't apply then yes it would be illegal , if not they revert to the earlier treaty where it is not illegal .

[Adrian II]

Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times :dizzy2: :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

Ooooooo thats a hard one , is it never , a few times , hundreds of times or many many thousands of times :dizzy2:

Haha, the funniest bit is that they're using WMD's(in the form of chemical weapons) in the current Iraq war... And here I was, thinking that they invaded to remove those weapons, not use them...

@Fenring: well, even if you exclude the underage people, you'd still be hard pressed to get the number above 25%....

[Kralizec]

Chemical weapons aren't necessarily WMD's.


@Fenring: well, even if you exclude the underage people, you'd still be hard pressed to get the number above 25%....

0.607 (turnout) X 0.507 (votes) = 0.307749 of people elligable to vote.

What was your point, anyway :shrug:

[HoreTore]

What was your point, anyway :shrug:

That GWB wasn't elected by the majority of the population.

[Kralizec]

So? That's not exactly unique.

We can't tell the political preference of those who stayed at home. A lot of them either don't favour one candidate above the other (i.e. they think both are crap), or simply don't care about politics in general. Unless the turnout is especially low (say, below 60%) I wouldn't take it to mean anything.

Besides, Jens Stoltenberg isn't elected at all :shrug:

[Watchman]

You know, the last I heard a rather large segment of the voting-age population of the US was deprived said right due to an array of circumstances involving the law enforcement system...

And given that the last time I checked the US had per capita more people in prison alone than the next three or so states put together...

[Kralizec]

Moral outrage at the fact that inmates in the US can't vote? :inquisitive:

Slightly more than one in a hundred, or so I recall. Even if they were all democrats they wouldn't have changed the outcome.

[Beirut]

And given that the last time I checked the US had per capita more people in prison alone than the next three or so states put together...

Between the absurdity of the War on Drugs, certainly one of the single largest US social disasters since slavery, and the reckless and mindless stupidities of Three Strikes Your Out, mandatory minimums, and for-profit incarceration, I'm surprised the entire adult population 18 to 35 isn't locked up.

[Watchman]

Moral outrage at the fact that inmates in the US can't vote? :inquisitive:

Slightly more than one in a hundred, or so I recall. Even if they were all democrats they wouldn't have changed the outcome.:shrug: Mainly just pointing out that's not exactly going to increase the ratio of folks at the urns there.

[Tribesman]

Haha, the funniest bit is that they're using WMD's(in the form of chemical weapons) in the current Iraq war...
They are not chemical weapons , they are target markers , you set the people on fire so they are easy to identify and shoot .:idea2:

Anyhow strictly speaking it isn't a war in Iraq so none of those rules apply .
Just as it isn't an occupation so none of those rules apply either .
If however someone finally does confirm the obvious and calls it a civil war then the coilitions gets to stand on really dodgy ground (rather than just being stuck in a really dodgy situation up to their necks with no way out) .

[Watchman]

Anyhow strictly speaking it isn't a war in Iraq so none of those rules apply .
Just as it isn't an occupation so none of those rules apply either .
If however someone finally does confirm the obvious and calls it a civil war then the coilitions gets to stand on really dodgy ground (rather than just being stuck in a really dodgy situation up to their necks with no way out) .I'm kind of reminded of The Onion's country-fact box on Iraq... "Primary cause of death: Victory"

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Oh dear , another one who can line up behind Mars to read the treaties on war crimes :coffeenews:

Subtle, but unnecessary. You noticed by the end that I did read it, to your disadvantage.

Please excuse me, .ORGahs. Back to the debate. :bow:

[Tribesman]

Subtle, but unnecessary. You noticed by the end that I did read it, to your disadvantage.

Not in the slightest , since as you shoud know by now (nasty as the events were) there is no way that they constituted a war crime under the legislation in effect at the time .
Like I said , if you want to call that method a war crime you will have to use a different example as Dresden doesn't fit the bill at all . Its all covered in the get out clauses .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not in the slightest , since as you shoud know by now (nasty as the events were) there is no way that they constituted a war crime under the legislation in effect at the time .
Like I said , if you want to call that method a war crime you will have to use a different example as Dresden doesn't fit the bill at all . Its all covered in the get out clauses .

Yes, I've heard that argument, and Panzer and myself have both been over it, and it's bullox.

Anyways, this is not the place.

[Tribesman]

Yoo hoo Mars , was Dresden a defended city ?
Was it garrisoned in divisional strength ?
Did the method differ from other raids ?
Was it full of legitimate military targets ?
Where the incendiary bombs designed to kill people or destroy buildings ?
Was the bomb mix loaded on the basis of the best combination to destroy buildings or people ?
Does the German declaration make all workers a legitimate military target ?
Was the aiming point chosen for its proximity to the two main train stations ?
Were those train stations allocated for priority military traffic ?

Yeah Panzer and yourself have both been over it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Spartan198]

Oooh, Google is nice.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf
When I click on that,it tells me I have to download some program to view it. Could you cut and paste whatever relevant info is there?

[Spartan198]

For all the nuclear weapons naysayers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp

[HoreTore]

So? That's not exactly unique.

I never said it was, did I?


Besides, Jens Stoltenberg isn't elected at all :shrug:

Huh? He most certainly is.

Our head of state isn't elected though, if it was him you were talking about. But then kings are rarely elected...

[Spartan198]

"What the media reports of the world disagrees with what I want to believe, so obviously the media is wrong and/or lying."
:dizzy2:
Hålla mig handen.
It only proves they're just biased,when their job is to be neutral.

[Spartan198]

This just gets funnier and funnier , keep it up Spartan you are a real scream .
You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.

[Tribesman]

For all the nuclear weapons naysayers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../19/wirq19.xml
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: I really must ask again , where the hell have you been for the past 5 years ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:



You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.
Hey Spartan I didn't call you stupid, I said
you appear to be largely devoid of anything mildly relating to the thought process.:yes:


It only proves they're just biased,when their job is to be neutral.
Oh stop will you , for gods sake their job is to make money , plain and simple .:dizzy2:


When I click on that,it tells me I have to download some program to view it.
Errrrrr...thats adobe , since you say you don't do media because it is clearly biased I wonder how you are getting your info since most lenghty government reports , documents from the UN about WMDs and a host of other really relevant material to what you are trying to talk about are presented in pdf. format .
Could it really be that you are attempting to make an arguement using years old inaccurate news articles and widely discredited claims by politicians without viewing any of the material that has long established them as being inaccurate and discredited .:jawdrop:
That really does put your statement into a new light

You know,I was thinking I could bring this topic here and discuss it without being called stupid,but clearly I was wrong.
You know , you wasn't thinking at all was you ~:doh:

[Watchman]

It only proves they're just biased,when their job is to be neutral.You seem to have rather... interesting... standards for "proof" and "bias" you know.
...
...
...okay, to be honest, I think they're just blatantly tendentious.

[HoreTore]

For all the nuclear weapons naysayers:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp

Thank you, that one really cracked me up :laugh4:

But then, it is dated June 2003, so he might have come to his senses by now...

[Pannonian]

You're all talking nonsense, and this kind of scepticism will lead to problems in the future. Luckily the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld does not share your doubts, which is why the war has been a great success. We only need one more thing, the capture of Saddam Hussein (where is he anyway?), and we'll have achieved all our objectives. Just you guys wait.

[Tribesman]

But then, it is dated June 2003, so he might have come to his senses by now...

Nope Kurtz still writes crap .
Apparently being wrong about the WMDS isn't important

Not nearly as important as the deterrent effect of an America willing to brave 3,000 casualties for the sake of proving our willingness to take down rouge states.
Frigging moonbat isn't he . he swings month to month from OMG get the nukes , bring down rogue states and lets have democracy to .....support dictators that sell nukes , support terrorsts and bugger democracy because people vote the wrong way and governments don't do what he wants .

But anyway I think people should really thank Spartan for this topic and his "thoughts" . It does everyone good to have a really heartfelt laugh and Spartan has certainly supplied them aplenty :2thumbsup:

[Ronin]

I´m so tired of this crap....

shut up you goddamn hippies!!! because guess what, hippies? We ******' won! Yeah! We went in there and we met our stated objective to... Uh, hang on, we went in to go -- uh, liberate the... Hang on, no. Here's why we went. We went to get the, uh... to strike a thing, uh... WE ******* WON, OKAY?

the nice man playing top gun on that boat thingy said so a couple of years ago...so it must be true

[Spartan198]

:Hey Spartan I didn't call you stupid, I said
you appear to be largely devoid of anything mildly relating to the thought process.:yes:
Yeah,that's a nice way of camouflaging an insult.
BTW,those reports I linked to are dated 2003 for a reason. They prove Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.
And I should ask you where you've been for the last 5 years. We captured Saddam,and I've seen his execution video on YouTube myself. Or do you need proof of that,too? I know exactly where to find it.

[CrossLOPER]

BTW,those reports I linked to are dated 2003 for a reason. They prove Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.
You have been told repeatedly that that information is outdated and has been disproved. Unless you can find a recent article that has the same information provided by a reliable source, you are not going to convince anyone.

Also, download Adobe Reader (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html). You will probably need it in the future, if not now.

And I should ask you where you've been for the last 5 years. We captured Saddam,and I've seen his execution video on YouTube myself. Or do you need proof of that,too? I know exactly where to find it.
I am more than sure he was being sarcastic.

[Adrian II]

You're all talking nonsense, and this kind of scepticism will lead to problems in the future. Luckily the US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld does not share your doubts, which is why the war has been a great success. We only need one more thing, the capture of Saddam Hussein (where is he anyway?), and we'll have achieved all our objectives. Just you guys wait.Well, the U.S. will have to attack Iraq first and secure at least most, if not all of their territory. Rumsfeld seems to think it'll be a walk-over, but I have my doubts whether the number of troops he sent will be sufficient to pull it off and pacify the country.

Pannonian, is there some sort of post-invasion planning being done, that you know of? :dozey:

[Pannonian]

Also, download Adobe Reader (http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html). You will probably need it in the future, if not now.

Utter nonsense. Just because the Portable Document Format is the universally used format for documents across all platforms and throughout the world doesn't mean I should accept these newfangled technologies. I'm pretty suspicious of this terrorist-sounding Hypertext Markup Language as well.


I am more than sure he was being sarcastic.
No, I'm being perfectly serious. BTW, is anyone going to contribute to the kitty for President Bush's re-election campaign next year?

[Lemur]

The PDF file format has a well-known liberal bias.

[Kralizec]

Huh? He most certainly is.

Our head of state isn't elected though, if it was him you were talking about. But then kings are rarely elected...

Unless I have a completely wrong idea of how Norwegian politics work (I'm assuming that it's a more or less generic parliamentary democracy) you can't honestly hold that a prime minister is ever elected as such, unless his own party has the absolute majority in parliament.

[Tribesman]

Yeah,that's a nice way of camouflaging an insult.

Is it ?
I thought it was an accurate appraisal based on the content of what you have written in this topic .
Not of course that I mind what you have written , I am most glad of your contribution , it has led to some of the best piss takes I have seen so many people make in one topic in this forum .:2thumbsup:
though of course some people are being very generous and extremely patient in their replies , like
You have been told repeatedly that that information is outdated and has been disproved.
Maybe it might be a good idea to actually think .


Well, the U.S. will have to attack Iraq first and secure at least most, if not all of their territory. Rumsfeld seems to think it'll be a walk-over, but I have my doubts whether the number of troops he sent will be sufficient to pull it off and pacify the country.

Don't be silly Adrian invasion lite is the way to go , if we sent in more troops it would cost more money in shipping and then we would only have to pay more to bring them home again once the adulating crowds had run out of flowers to throw .

[Adrian II]

Don't be silly Adrian invasion lite is the way to go , if we sent in more troops it would cost more money in shipping and then we would only have to pay more to bring them home again once the adulating crowds had run out of flowers to throw .I hear there's a statue of Saddam somewhere in a Baghdad square. By the time Rumsfeld finds some rent-a-crowd from Saddam City to tear it down, this war will be over and U.S. troops can begin to dismantle Saddam's wmd's, secret nuclear facilities and mobile rocket launchers.

[Vladimir]

When I click on that,it tells me I have to download some program to view it. Could you cut and paste whatever relevant info is there?

You mean Adobe? It's a 60 page report on the decision to invade Iraq and its aftermath.

Anyway. In 2003 Iraq did have WMDs, everyone knew it, just like Japan was going to attack the Philippines in December 1941.

Read the WMD commission report.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

https://img212.imageshack.us/img212/4341/060903vp6.jpg


:coffeenews:

[Beirut]

Apparently the Republic of Morskoj knows not the difference between deciduous and coniferous.

Shmoos.

[Tribesman]

Anyway. In 2003 Iraq did have WMDs, everyone knew it, just like Japan was going to attack the Philippines in December 1941.

Yeah apart from them damn French who had the front to say the intelligence was bollox , oh and the Russians because they are Russian and the Chinese but thats because they are really foriegn and must have sold him loads of WMDs anyway because they are like Koreans and Pakistanis and they are all the same and interbred because they come from Asia and of course the UN ... all them horrible people at the UN laughing at poor Colin and saying his cast iron evidence was fabricated how dare they .:furious3:

Still once its over by Christmas and the oil is flowing cheaply , Iran will be cowering in fear as it will have two secure hostile democracies on its borders to worry about and Americas army with a widely expanded coilition will really be ready to kick some camel .:unitedstates:

[Redleg]

For all the nuclear weapons naysayers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/19/wirq19.xml
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz060903.asp

As stated your information is old. Read the Duefler Report on Iraq WMD.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

Edit: And you probably really want to read the report. While it isn't all that favorable toward the initial reason's for the invasion of Iraq, it doesn't disprove all the stated reasons for the invasion either, in fact, if I remember my own reading of it correctly - it validates at least two of the intial reason's given by Bush for the War. However for those against the war it, doesn't provide validation for the primary justification for the war used by the Bush Adminstration either.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Apparently the Republic of Morskoj knows not the difference between deciduous and coniferous.

Shmoos.

There's no better tree for firewood than the good old birch.

[Pannonian]

As stated your information is old. Read the Duefler Report on Iraq WMD.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
When I click on these, it tells me I have to download some program to view it.

[Redleg]

When I click on these, it tells me I have to download some program to view it.

Then download the program for a safe source --- :yes: :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

Then download the program for a safe source --- :yes: :laugh4:
Nah, I'm pretty sure this Adobe thing has a liberal bias, and I'm downloading no damn liberal hippy program onto my computer. Hell, I don't trust those damn browser thingies either. Sure, it takes me longer to write a post by feeding in punchcards, but I know my 320x240 monitor and my trusty 8 baud modem will never fail me.

[Beirut]

There's no better tree for firewood than the good old birch.

:inquisitive:

I thunk you need to starts a farewood thread in the Frontroom so we can learns ya proper like.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

:inquisitive:

I thunk you need to starts a farewood thread in the Frontroom so we can learns ya proper like.

I've always used it - the bark works as kindling, the wood catches easily...

I'll always throw on a big log of some other kind of wood for a good, long burn though.

[CrossLOPER]

:inquisitive:

I thunk you need to starts a farewood thread in the Frontroom so we can learns ya proper like.
The bark is good for burning, but I'll take you up on that.

[Redleg]

:inquisitive:

I thunk you need to starts a farewood thread in the Frontroom so we can learns ya proper like.

Naw we can just derail this thread farther.

I like pine 2x4 made into kinliding (SP) and used to start a small fire of split pine. After the fire is going good - place a Mesquite log on the fire - burns nice and hot for a long time. Works good in the old house without central heat.

Now if pine isn't available - cottonwood makes an adequate substitute

[ajaxfetish]

Why does caring about my fellow human beings make me a bad person. The Iraqi people are no less human than us Yanks and Brits. If you don't care about them,that's your choice. It doesn't hurt me.

Do you support an immediate US invasion of Yugoslavia, North Korea, Indonesia, Algeria, Libya, Columbia, Egypt, Israel, China, and Iran? How about Turkey, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, South Korea, or India? If not, what makes the Iraqi people so special to you?

Ajax

[Redleg]

Do you support an immediate US invasion of Yugoslavia, North Korea, Indonesia, Algeria, Libya, Columbia, Egypt, Israel, China, and Iran? How about Turkey, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, South Korea, or India? If not, what makes the Iraqi people so special to you?

Ajax

Oh boy now we are really getting full of hyperbole.

Now lets answer.

Yugoslavia has been broken up into several nations - so which new republic should we invade. That is besides the ones that alreadly have some sort of NATO or UN presence?

North Korea - since a state of war alreadly exists between North Korea and South Korea, with the North Korean government counting the US as still part of that conflict, I think your point is rather mute here.

Indonesia - Hmm tough question on that one, do they have nuclear or chemical weapons? Or are we to invade the largest Islamic nation just because of their religion?

Algeria - that seems to alreadly be settled by themselves - or are they deciding that its all France's fault again?

Libya - alreadly bombed in the 1980's, and he learned his lesson.

Columbia - At last I heard the United States alreadly as at least a law enforcement agency in country.

Egypt - the United States used to send a rotation to Egypt to monitor the cease fire between Egypt and Israel. Last I heard Egypt is not attempting to invade its neighbors, nor is it developing nuclear or chemical weapons. Or are you just picking on them because of their religion.

Israel - an ally of the United States. However they have sent spies into the US to steal secerts once again. Would make all the Islamic fundmentalist happy though - a good possiblity to conduct such an operation to bring about world peace. :sweatdrop: :laugh4:

China - we would lose all those jobs cheap consumer goods. Good capitialists dont destroy their cheap labor source.

Iran - Hillary alreadly took care of that requirement.......

Turkey - I see your picking on Muslim nations again.....

Mexico - population assimlation soon to be accomplished. No need for an invasion by the United States, since an invasion is alreadly happening......:oops:

Saudia Arabia - naw its just a big desert, beside been there not a pretty country at all. Or is it the Islam thing again for you....

Pakistan - seems someone is picking on Muslim countries as targets for invasion. Now they do have weapons of mass destruction all aimed at India....

South Korea - see answer for North Korea. Then again we also invaded both North and South Korea at least once alreadly. Inchon ring a bell.....

India - can't invade India we would lose all those jobs all that cheap labor....

[ajaxfetish]

Sorry to get you riled up, Redleg. Just grabbed a bunch of names from an online list of nations with high per capita records of human rights violations. I've got nothing personal against them, I just find it interesting that Spartan at one point used caring about the Iraqi people as his justification for the war. It seems strange to have so much care for the people of Iraq (does he know any personally?), without having a similar concern for oppressed people the world over.

Ajax

[Redleg]

Sorry to get you riled up, Redleg. Just grabbed a bunch of names from an online list of nations with high per capita records of human rights violations. I've got nothing personal against them, I just find it interesting that Spartan at one point used caring about the Iraqi people as his justification for the war. It seems strange to have so much care for the people of Iraq (does he know any personally?), without having a similar concern for oppressed people the world over.

Ajax

no big deal - I just wanted to point out the weakness of hyperbole exambles and try out a different type of arguement then I have in the past. Most of it I will probably delete unless some fish actually takes a bit out of it.

[Adrian II]

Who's Hillary?

[HoreTore]

Unless I have a completely wrong idea of how Norwegian politics work (I'm assuming that it's a more or less generic parliamentary democracy) you can't honestly hold that a prime minister is ever elected as such, unless his own party has the absolute majority in parliament.

Uhm, yes he is. A few of our ministers aren't elected though(Støre is the only one I can think of atm). But ministers aren't elected in any country as far as I know.

Why do you think he isn't, btw?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Whilst this has been the funniest and most informative (if one is interested in the properties of firewood) threads for some time, I would ask that the snide insults directed at some members cease forthwith.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Tribesman]

Who's Hillary?
He climed Everest a couple of years ago .
Oh sorry wrong Hillary, I must be in a time warp .
Its this one .
She has recently been elected in New York for her first term , she says that Saddam and Al-qaida are buddies and there is convincing evidence based on reliable sources to confirm that it is really true and not just another made up piece of crap to try and convince the gullible .:yes:
She also said we shouldn't do diplomacy at the UN over this , but I think she was just upset about the silly unbelievers and naysayers laughing at the evidence .
A great woman really , though somewhat shy and reserved yet with a capacity for honesty that is truly rare among politicians . She would make a great candidate for higher office but due to her wish to remain an obscure backround figure I doubt she coud be convinced to stand in the near future .

[Brenus]

“Yugoslavia”: This country doesn’t exist any more. About old news...

“Yugoslavia has been broken up into several nations - so which new republic should we invade”: Considering NATO bombing, a Protectorate in Bosnia with several Foreign Troops on it territory, a Protectorate kind of Panama model in Kosovo "Self Proclaimed Country" helped by Foreign Troops, carved in a other State which refuses to recognise the spoil of war, we can consider that it is “mission accomplished”… :beam:

[Tribesman]

“Yugoslavia”: This country doesn’t exist any more.
When did that happen ?
Where is Tito nowadays ?

[Adrian II]

She has recently been elected in New York for her first term , she says that Saddam and Al-qaida are buddies and there is convincing evidence based on reliable sources to confirm that it is really true and not just another made up piece of crap to try and convince the gullible .:yes:
She also said we shouldn't do diplomacy at the UN over this , but I think she was just upset about the silly unbelievers and naysayers laughing at the evidence .Isn't it about time she threatened Iran then?

[Tribesman]

Isn't it about time she threatened Iran then?
No because after the invasion Iran will be quaking with fear and they will have seen what happens to countries that have WMDs .
This Invasion will completely sideline the Iranians throughout the region and eliminate any marginal influence that they may currently have .
So even if edmund should stand for higher mountains I cannot see that the office at the peak would have do make any threats at all about Iran since the veracity of the intelligence operation and the astounding military and political prowess of the coilition shall have them Araby Persiany ...ah well they are all the same as the go to the bakery lots and lots as they are really into bread ..... begging for the mighty forces of democracy to liberate them too .

[Kralizec]

Uhm, yes he is. A few of our ministers aren't elected though(Støre is the only one I can think of atm). But ministers aren't elected in any country as far as I know.

Why do you think he isn't, btw?

They're only elected as members of parliament.

I don't know how coalition's are born in your country, but over here it basicly comes down to that two (sometimes three) large parties make deals about what to do and what not, and divide ministry posts as spoils of the election. We only have an indirect voice in how the executive branch is going to look like.

[Redleg]

Tribesman you just crack me up with your comments on Hillary.:laugh4:

[Adrian II]

This Invasion will completely sideline the Iranians throughout the region and eliminate any marginal influence that they may currently have.Sure sure, but couldn't Hillary, you know, say something like 'If Iran's president is prepared to wipe Israel off the map, I am prepared to wipe Iran off the map' - 'wiping off' being shorthand for 'I am a two-bit dictator with crackpot ideas, no sense of responsibility and a remarkably small penis'?

Nah, Edmund probably wouldn't be that silly. :no:

[Spartan198]

You have been told repeatedly that that information is outdated and has been disproved. Unless you can find a recent article that has the same information provided by a reliable source, you are not going to convince anyone.
Just about everyone is implying that everything from my government is trash,while everything from their governments is the gleaming symbol of truth.

I am more than sure he was being sarcastic.
That's why I didn't put a link. Not everybody has the stomach to handle that kind of thing.

[Spartan198]

Here's further proof of Saddam's possible nuclear capability at least 10 years prior to the first Gulf War (which has nothing to do with a US military strike):
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.php

[Adrian II]

Here's further proof of Saddam's possible nuclear capability at least 10 years prior to the first Gulf War (which has nothing to do with a US military strike):
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_iraq_1981.phpHere's more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak).

That's thirty years ago! :yes:

[Pannonian]

Here's more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak).

That's thirty years ago! :yes:
All the more reason to attack Iraq, as they'll have had 30 years in which to rebuild their nuclear programme.

[Adrian II]

All the more reason to attack Iraq, as they'll have had 30 years in which to rebuild their nuclear programme.Imagine Hitler with nuklear arms! :dizzy2:

[Tribesman]

Sure sure, but couldn't Hillary, you know, say something like 'If Iran's president is prepared to wipe Israel off the map, I am prepared to wipe Iran off the map' - 'wiping off' being shorthand for 'I am a two-bit dictator with crackpot ideas, no sense of responsibility and a remarkably small penis'?

Nah, Edmund probably wouldn't be that silly.
ah of course the small penis complex , that explains why Tenzing Nogay had such a big smile in the newphangled photogrphic images , the smug little inbred indonesian (or is he mongolian ? doesn't matter as they are all the same)was relying on his imbreeding to furnish himself with a todger the size of a donkeys .
But anyway its all irrelevant now , the young boy from the town has presently arrived on his velocipede bringing a telegram , the news has been delivered from the colonies aboard a clipper bringing wool that Hillary has indeed died .
A rather unfortunate epitaph though , apparently on being questioned about his reasoning to Nuke Iran he replied "because it was there" . Luckily he never got to the peak of high office eh :yes:



Just about everyone is implying that everything from my government is trash,while everything from their governments is the gleaming symbol of truth.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh dear havn't you downloaded adobe yet , the report linked that shows the claims were bollox is from your government , unless of course you think the US government publishers are doing some moonlighting for another government .

[Spartan198]

what makes the Iraqi people so special to you?

Ajax
I've got close family friends that immigrated from Iraq in the late '80s and still have relatives currently living over there,plus ones that have died under Saddam's regime.
Is that a good enough reason?

[Spartan198]

the report linked that shows the claims were bollox is from your government , unless of course you think the US government publishers are doing some moonlighting for another government .
Pay close attention to this sentence:

On June 7, 1981 Israeli warplanes struck the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad.
Would a country not need nuclear capabiltiy to construct any kind of nuclear facility? And henseforth the capability to construct said nuclear facility would mean the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Said nuclear facility would produce radioactive material usable in constructing said nuclear weapons.
And look closely at the date. Israeli bombers destroyed the facility in 1981,which was a bit less than 20 years and 1 month before the official US invasion.
That gives Saddam more than enough time to rebuild said facility.

Edit: And on top of that,why don't you open up this link,and look at the source of the info at the bottom of the page:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html

[Ronin]

ok...first of all pay close attention to THIS sentence..


On June 7, 1981

that was a while ago wasn´t it?....between then and 2003 wasn´t it there like a war that basically destroyed the infrastructure they would need to such an endeavor?

also...second....

I wouldn´t trust the israel defense forces to tell me the truth on information regarding Iraq any more that I would trust Hammas to give me the straight truth about Israel....

[Tribesman]

Pay close attention to this sentence:

Yes and ???????? Oh I get it , it was destroyed , and then the Americans made sure it was definately destroyed , and the UN checked to made sure it was really destroyed so....errrrr doesn't that mean it didn't exist in 2003 ?
Or am I missing some really cunning punchline you are about to deliver ?



Would a country not need nuclear capabiltiy to construct any kind of nuclear facility? And henseforth the capability to construct said nuclear facility would mean the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Said nuclear facility would produce radioactive material usable in constructing said nuclear weapons
Ok now I don't know how to put this politely , but it appears that not only don't you think , cannot read and have such strange definitions of what constitutes truth that it really beggars belief , it appears you add not having a clue about nulclear science to the equation .

As Hillary recently said Iran has oil , oil can be made into petrol , petrol fuels internal combustion engines , those engines can be found in cars , so that means Iran has the worlds leading car manufacturing plants .
Though in fairness it was suggested that Hillarys rant was the much delayed after effect of altitude sickness .

I must ask though , if your own government says the claims it made were bollox, all the other governments say the claims were bollox , the weapons inspectors say the claims were bollox how is it you cannot comprehend that the claims were indeed bollox ?
Now I know you said you don't hold with conspiracy theories , but it certainly appears that you have a little conspiracy theory going yourself , the entire world is lying and you alone know the truth :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

They're only elected as members of parliament.

I don't know how coalition's are born in your country, but over here it basicly comes down to that two (sometimes three) large parties make deals about what to do and what not, and divide ministry posts as spoils of the election. We only have an indirect voice in how the executive branch is going to look like.

Before the election, the three parties of our governing coalition all named stoltenberg as their choice for PM, should they get majority together. Three other parties did the same for Bondevik.

Anyway, a PM is completely different from a president. Stoltenberg doesn't have a lot of power here; he has to do exactly what the party tells him to do. If at any time the party is unhappy with him, he will be removed instantly. If the republicans are unhappy with Bush, all they can do is yell at him. The PM position is a position of power for a party, the presidential position grants a lot of power to an individual.

[Ironside]

Just about everyone is implying that everything from my government is trash,while everything from their governments is the gleaming symbol of truth.


You remember that Duelfer report Redleg refered to in post 94? The CIA homepage was hacked 4 years ago by leet skillz liberal hackers that put that report on the homepage (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html) (sometimes later in a nice html format). At this day the CIA still haven't been able to remove this. :no:

It might also be the offical CIA report on the WMD projects in Iraq, but with the liberal media you never really know...


Well, the U.S. will have to attack Iraq first and secure at least most, if not all of their territory. Rumsfeld seems to think it'll be a walk-over, but I have my doubts whether the number of troops he sent will be sufficient to pull it off and pacify the country.

Pannonian, is there some sort of post-invasion planning being done, that you know of? :dozey:

Well if what I've heard the oil money will be so much that it will basically pay the war and rebuilding by itself.
As for the actual rebuilding it will end up in competent hands (who can say that opportunists and Bush lovers aren't naturally compentent and won't ever put thier own interests over the common good) and by loading tons on money without any supervision the money will automatically end up in competent hands helping rebuilding swimming pools in the US Iraq.

[Adrian II]

[..] loading tons on money without any supervision the money will automatically end up in competent hands helping rebuilding swimming pools in the US Iraq.So Cheney is on it then? Let's hope he doesn't shoot his hunting partner himself in the face foot.

[HoreTore]

Pay close attention to this sentence:

Would a country not need nuclear capabiltiy to construct any kind of nuclear facility? And henseforth the capability to construct said nuclear facility would mean the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Said nuclear facility would produce radioactive material usable in constructing said nuclear weapons.
And look closely at the date. Israeli bombers destroyed the facility in 1981,which was a bit less than 20 years and 1 month before the official US invasion.
That gives Saddam more than enough time to rebuild said facility.

Edit: And on top of that,why don't you open up this link,and look at the source of the info at the bottom of the page:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html

Back in the day when Saddam was supported by western governments, you mean?

[Tribesman]

Back in the day when Saddam was supported by western governments, you mean?

Yeah that should be interesting , when they eventually catch him and put him on trial it will be fascinating to see what Saddam says about his western suppliers and backers in relation to his gassing of the Kurds .


Well if what I've heard the oil money will be so much that it will basically pay the war and rebuilding by itself.

Oh well if that is the case I will definately support the troops and vote for the funding , after all its only right that Iraq revenue should be used for the benefit of Iraq , if however they change the bill and lumber the US taxpayer with all the expense I might have to reconsider and perhaps flip my vote over to a no , after all its only reasonable and no one could possibly hold such a change of vote in those circumstances against me .

[ajaxfetish]

Yugoslavia has been broken up into several nations - so which new republic should we invade. That is besides the ones that alreadly have some sort of NATO or UN presence?


“Yugoslavia”: This country doesn’t exist any more. About old news...

“Yugoslavia has been broken up into several nations - so which new republic should we invade”: Considering NATO bombing, a Protectorate in Bosnia with several Foreign Troops on it territory, a Protectorate kind of Panama model in Kosovo "Self Proclaimed Country" helped by Foreign Troops, carved in a other State which refuses to recognise the spoil of war, we can consider that it is “mission accomplished”…
Just for the record, one of the nations resulting from the fragmentation of Yugoslavia goes by the name of . . . wait for it . . . Yugoslavia.


I've got close family friends that immigrated from Iraq in the late '80s and still have relatives currently living over there,plus ones that have died under Saddam's regime.
Is that a good enough reason?
That certainly makes a particular concern for the people of that nation more believable. Thank you.

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

ah of course the small penis complex , that explains why Tenzing Nogay had such a big smile in the newphangled photogrphic images , the smug little inbred indonesian (or is he mongolian ? doesn't matter as they are all the same)was relying on his imbreeding to furnish himself with a todger the size of a donkeys .
But anyway its all irrelevant now , the young boy from the town has presently arrived on his velocipede bringing a telegram , the news has been delivered from the colonies aboard a clipper bringing wool that Hillary has indeed died .
A rather unfortunate epitaph though , apparently on being questioned about his reasoning to Nuke Iran he replied "because it was there" . Luckily he never got to the peak of high office eh :yes:
Wow! Worthy of Gregoshi! :bow:

Ajax

[Brenus]

:laugh4: “Just for the record, one of the nations resulting from the fragmentation of Yugoslavia goes by the name of . . . wait for it . . . Yugoslavia.” :beam:
I suggest you to read newspapers (from between 5 and 3 years old) and watch news. Yugoslavia doesn’t exist any more. The last “Yugoslavia” was the Union of Montenegro and Serbia. Montenegro broke the Union, with a Referendum, I think 2 years ago, then the Yugoslavia (The Slave of the South) ceased to exist, living Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia (Federation and Republic of the Serbs) Macedonia (Former Yugoslavv Republic of Macedonia), Montenegro, Slovenia as independant States and distinct.

Good to be sarcastic, better when it is on informed basis…:beam:

[Ironside]

So Cheney is on it then? Let's hope he doesn't shoot his hunting partner himself in the face foot.

Cheney is on it and so it Rumsfeld, who suggested that we might be able to reduce the number of troops to about 30.000 at the end of the year. So according to plan, almost all the troops will be home in less than a year. Very impressive. :2thumbsup:

Cheney seems to be a bit more pessemistic and expects an insurgence, but it will most certainly be at it's last throes by the middle of 2005.

[Adrian II]

Yeah that should be interesting , when they eventually catch him and put him on trial it will be fascinating to see what Saddam says about his western suppliers and backers in relation to his gassing of the Kurds.Or the satellite pictures the U.S. provided to him. Or the virus cultures they sent him with which to expand his biological warfare capability. Or the chemicals and expertise sold to him by the Europeans. Or the $1bn US contract to design and build a petrochemical plant which Saddam planned to use to produce mustard gas right after the Halabja massacre. Or the U.S. and UK blocking UN investigations into his gassing of Iranians. Or the hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. loans with which Saddam paid for Russian and Chinese expertise and weapons systems which they sold to him in spite of all the sanctions.

Wait.

I'm getting really bad vibes of a sudden.

You don't suppose they sentence him to death or a relatively minor charge and hang him before all of this transpires, documents appear, present and former heads of state from around the world are called to the witness stand and so on. :dizzy2:

[Spartan198]

Back in the day when Saddam was supported by western governments, you mean?
Enemies change with the times,just like warfare itself. Today's closest ally could end up being tomorrow's bitterest enemy.

That certainly makes a particular concern for the people of that nation more believable. Thank you.
No matter where I go,some people will doubtless assume this and that simply on the basis of my nationality. There's no escaping it,so I might as well disprove said assumptions where ever I can and not let the rest of it bother me.

Just for the record,though,I do believe that everyone has the right to live without being persecuted for who they are,what they believe,etc.. But there are still individuals who won't ever get the cheuvanistic American stereotype out of their heads. Doesn't matter to me,anyway. Has no baring on who I really am,after all.

[Pannonian]

Enemies change with the times,just like warfare itself. Today's closest ally could end up being tomorrow's bitterest enemy.
I suppose Britain should start preparing for war with the US then, on the back of this observation.

[HoreTore]

Enemies change with the times,just like warfare itself. Today's closest ally could end up being tomorrow's bitterest enemy.

Yes, but can you really pick on him for what he did when he was your own ally...?

[Ronin]

Yes, but can you really pick on him for what he did when he was your own ally...?

you took the works out of my keyboard...

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/moo2ms3.jpg

[CountArach]

Cheney is on it and so it Rumsfeld, who suggested that we might be able to reduce the number of troops to about 30.000 at the end of the year. So according to plan, almost all the troops will be home in less than a year. Very impressive. :2thumbsup:

Cheney seems to be a bit more pessemistic and expects an insurgence, but it will most certainly be at it's last throes by the middle of 2005.
Haha, man I got such a laugh at that :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Yes, but can you really pick on him for what he did when he was your own ally...?

Of course you can , as long as you avoid questions about why you helped him do it . A quick execution might solve that issue though .

I mean you could of course explain that these Kurds were evil Iranian backed terrorists who were fighting against a good Iraqi dictator and were aiming to establish a Kurdish homeland in Iraqi territory which would be a good reason really as to why they deserved to be gassed
But then you would have to explain why these evil Iranian backed terrorists fighting for a Kurdish homeland in Iraq are now called a stabilising influence .


Or the satellite pictures the U.S. provided to him. Or the virus cultures they sent him with which to expand his biological warfare capability. Or the chemicals and expertise sold to him by the Europeans. Or the $1bn US contract to design and build a petrochemical plant which Saddam planned to use to produce mustard gas right after the Halabja massacre. Or the U.S. and UK blocking UN investigations into his gassing of Iranians. Or the hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. loans with which Saddam paid for Russian and Chinese expertise and weapons systems which they sold to him in spite of all the sanctions.

Now now Adrian be fair , many western governments including your own helped him with his nastyness , not just the US and Britain , and many countries sold him weapons despite the sanctions......
actually which was the country that sold him helicopter gunships but called them agricultural machinery because to do otherwise would have been breaking not only its obligations under international sanctions that it approved but breaking its own national laws too ?
hmmm ....hard question that one isn't it , I think the answer is out there on a carrier pigeon somewhere .
Though obviously you will have to obtain the correct crib sheet to read it after you catch the pigeon as the answer is encrypted since such information is of course extremely sensitive and it wouldn't do for just anyone with the new babbage engine to be able to access it .
Plus there is the advantage that you can eat the pigeon after you retrieve the information , these new methods of information transmission are not only highly informative they are rather nutritious too .

[Adrian II]

Now now Adrian be fair , many western governments including your own helped him with his nastyness , not just the US and Britain , and many countries sold him weapons despite the sanctions......That is exactly what I did, good Sir. I would prefer it if you read my posts before swallowing them whole, wrenching the pigeon's neck, changing into enemy enemy uniform and sleeking inconspicuously into yonder brushwood, brandishing nine inches of cold Irish steel beneath your sly grin.
:coffeenews:

[ajaxfetish]

:laugh4: “Just for the record, one of the nations resulting from the fragmentation of Yugoslavia goes by the name of . . . wait for it . . . Yugoslavia.” :beam:
I suggest you to read newspapers (from between 5 and 3 years old) and watch news. Yugoslavia doesn’t exist any more. The last “Yugoslavia” was the Union of Montenegro and Serbia. Montenegro broke the Union, with a Referendum, I think 2 years ago, then the Yugoslavia (The Slave of the South) ceased to exist, living Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia (Federation and Republic of the Serbs) Macedonia (Former Yugoslavv Republic of Macedonia), Montenegro, Slovenia as independant States and distinct.

Good to be sarcastic, better when it is on informed basis…:beam:
Well color me embarassed :embarassed:. I generally pride myself on a decent knowledge of geography, but that change sailed right by well below my radar. I'll be sure to take your advice on sarcasm to heart.

Ajax

[Tribesman]

Ajax , a small question
That certainly makes a particular concern for the people of that nation more believable. Thank you.
how does it ?
His friends left Iraq when Saddam was killing Iraqis with Spartans governments(amonng others) assistance , surely if his concern was more believable he would be really critical of his governments role .
Its about as believable as the person who said they hated Chavez because he knew people who had fled from persecution by his government years before he had got anywhere near government .

[ajaxfetish]

I think of it in terms of the monkeysphere. There are only so many people you can comprehend as having humanity at a time. People inside of that circle matter. People outside are statistics. While he may not know people currently living in Iraq, knowledge of people from there could put a face on the idea of the Iraqi citizen, giving them more humanity and prompting more empathy. I can at least imagine Spartan feeling more concerned about the people of Iraq than a nation he is completely unfamiliar with.

As to the second part, having a concern for someone doesn't mean you necessarily help them in the most reasonable way. Lack of understanding or critical thinking, or the blinders of preconception could still prevent it.

Ajax

[Tribesman]

As to the second part, having a concern for someone doesn't mean you necessarily help them in the most reasonable way.
Yeah I know what you mean , some peoples idea of help is to support a dictatorship when it is killing its population , then impose sanctions that hurt the population and enrich the dictator , then break those sanctions in a manner that enriches the dictator more , then bomb the population , then invade and kill them , then execute the dictator and carry on killing the population and pretend you really care about them .


That is exactly what I did, good Sir. I would prefer it if you read my posts before swallowing them whole
Hey Adrian it was just a good lead into the gunships into ploughshares dig .


brandishing nine inches of cold Irish steel beneath your sly grin.

Who needs nine inches , an inch knuckleblade does the job much better .
But as Hillary said size doesn't matter , which of course made Tenzings smug smile even bigger .

[HoreTore]

Well color me embarassed :embarassed:. I generally pride myself on a decent knowledge of geography, but that change sailed right by well below my radar.

Yeah well, you probably already knew it, but with the name of "Serbia and Montenegro"...

Basically what happened is that everyone else split up and made new states, and the only territory left was what made up Serbia and Montenegro, neither of which declared any independence, but decided to stick with a semi-union. They've declared independence by now though, first Montenegro, then Serbia a few days after, and that was the final end of Yugoslavia.