Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/2/2003 5:34:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2003 5:37:24 PM EST by ilikelegs]
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 5:39:09 PM EST
Hey legs, you just proved the UN is a JOKE beyond any shadow of a doubt [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 5:43:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 5:47:08 PM EST
Yea right. If you believe that, the word gullable isn't in the dictionary.
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 5:47:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 5:49:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 5:49:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 5:51:37 PM EST
Ummm...you're taking the word of this IRAQI official that the UN hasn't found anything yet?
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:00:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:05:10 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:09:05 PM EST
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: Please note the sarcasm in the thread Rik.
View Quote
sarcasm? what is that? me no understand. ilikelegs, "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists!"
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:14:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:30:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By ilikelegs: Please note the sarcasm in the thread Rik.
View Quote
I noted YOUR sarcasm...it's those who are commenting on how the UN sucks and how did you expect anything else from the inspectors, etc that I am boggling at.
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:32:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By 308wood: sarcasm? what is that? me no understand. ilikelegs, "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists!"
View Quote
Amazing how you drew all that BS from my post...oh wait, it wasn't IN my post. So it must have come out of your ass, right?
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:33:57 PM EST
With 4+ years of no inspectors of any kind, the Iraquis have become masters of deception and subterfuge. They have WMD but we'll never find it. CMOS
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:42:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/2/2003 6:43:28 PM EST by trickshot]
Originally Posted By CMOS: With 4+ years of no inspectors of any kind, the Iraquis have become masters of deception and subterfuge. They have WMD but we'll never find it. CMOS
View Quote
Oh yeah, totally unlike our own masters of deception and subterfuge about to get the US invovled in a unnecessary war. Whether or not Iraq has those weapons isn't even the point, it was just a convenient excuse. I know the UN sucks, but jesus, we Americans have no one to trust anymore at all--our leaders lie like fiends, the UN is a bunch of socialists. Nobody is suggesting that Iraq could be left alone for the next 100 years with no ill effects upon the world whatsoever. Saddam would get himself nuked if he ever so much as popped a single cannister of mustard gas or sarin or whatever US corporations sold him back in the 1970s and 1980s (with the wholehearted blessing of that asshole Rumsfeld, I might add). So what exactly is the terrible threat again?
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:56:25 PM EST
Hmmm, Has anyone considered that the govt knows where some of the WMD are? And that providing that data to the UN inspectors (sic) now is a wasted effort. But it will happen a few days prior to the planned dynamic entry into Saddams bedroom? Day 1 Hey look here! Day 2 UN finds WMD. Day 3 Inspectors are advised to leave Iraq Day 4 Troops are in Bahgdad Just a theory. You don't give it up until all the parts are in place. Seems like they are in place for a late January entrance. Pray that the Iraqi people see the futility of resistance and welcome the troops as liberators. We only need one casualty to succeed.
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 6:57:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 7:05:24 PM EST
Welcome?
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 7:13:42 PM EST
For some reason I don't believe CNN. Call me crazy, but I think that they have weapons.
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 7:32:47 PM EST
We must be getting close. Sounds like they want us out.
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 7:34:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By xbigfootx: Yea right. If you believe that, the word gullable isn't in the dictionary.
View Quote
Actually, gullable isn't in the dictionary, however; gullible is. I don't believe it. None of those inspections were of any surprise to the Iraqis, they just kept up what they had been doing in '98, they put the shit on trucks and moved it around.
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 7:35:41 PM EST
I think they hid the unranuim in Sadam's sons Leg. Didn't you see him hobbling around on crutches.:-) I wish Bush would come on TV and show the proof and say check mate as our boys kick in sadams' bedroom door.
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 10:29:53 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/2/2003 11:57:14 PM EST
Maybe the inspectors were provided by Argenbright Security Inc.
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 5:54:56 AM EST
Originally Posted By trickshot: Oh yeah, totally unlike our own masters of deception and subterfuge about to get the US invovled in a unnecessary war.
View Quote
trickshot, you're the master of the non sequitur. It's the only thing you're the master of, so enjoy it.
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 6:37:21 AM EST
...unnecessary war??? If Saddam has wmds (and the long distance John Bull type cannons or whatever to deliver them), then getting rid of them and him could be a necessary war?? 82nd... waiting for the pieces to get into place... real soon!
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 6:46:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 10:15:59 AM EST
Well DUH! Of course Iraq doesn't have WMD. There is NO evidence that Iraq has them. This war is totally unnecessary. Iraq is not a threat, and won't be a threat. There hasn't been any evidence that Iraq is a threat to the US. Just a lot of rhetoric.
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 10:24:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Well DUH! Of course Iraq doesn't have WMD. There is NO evidence that Iraq has them.
View Quote
Except of course for all that evidence that they do have them.
Link Posted: 1/3/2003 1:43:37 PM EST
I wish Bush would come on TV and show the proof and say check mate as our boys kick in sadams' bedroom door.
View Quote
One phrase: "Methods and operations" Sometimes you have the evidence or the information, but using it would reveal its source and compromise either a useful method, an ongoing operation or sensitive personnel who continue to provide substantive information. This is probably the issue here. We have proof from sensitive sources that we would like to keep covert or clandestine, but we need to act on the information, so we build a case as best we can from non-sensitive sources and proceed. The only people we tell about our real information are folks we can trust to keep it close...that list is REAL short, amounting to a handful of foreign government types such as the head of Britain's SIS, the Prime Minister and a few other high officials who we must trust in order to get anything done. Having fantastic sources is great, right up until they give you an information stream you must act on, then they get complicated.
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 1:42:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Well DUH! Of course Iraq doesn't have WMD. There is NO evidence that Iraq has them.
View Quote
Except of course for all that evidence that they do have them.
View Quote
Imaginary evidence doesn't count. Where is this so-called evidence anyway?
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 1:55:02 PM EST
_uck the UN! If we had given Sodom Hussy another couple of months they could have hidden every weapon in the country and just had steak knives on display for the inspectors! F'n UN!!
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 2:46:51 PM EST
How did this happen? I think it might have went something like this: UN Inspector 1: "What's this box over here? The label says your-any-umm. Is this a weapon?" UN Inspector 2: "How should I know! Hey, did you see this machine? It looks really cool! Look at that shape it's making! It's so shiny!" UN Inspector 3: "Hey, isn't it time for lunch?" UN Inspector 2: "Yeah, I think so. Isn't that waitress chick hot?" UN Inspector 3: "Hell yeah! Lets go!" UN Inspector 1: "Hey, why is this stuff warm? It's been sitting on a shelf all day." UN Inspector 3: "Who cares? I'm hungry. If you keep messing with that stuff, you might get your hands dirty" UN Inspector 1: "Okay, okay, I'm coming" Yeah, Iraq has no WMDs like AR15.com has no rifles.
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 9:16:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/5/2003 9:24:16 AM EST by Kroagnon]
Originally Posted By CMOS: They have WMD but we'll never find it.
View Quote
Yes, Iraq has WMD. They have chemical and biological weapons. However, they only have means to deliver chemical weapons on the battlefield. They have not been able to deliver chemical weapons on Scuds or biological weapons via any means. And even if they did, so what? Iraq's best Scuds have at most a 400-mile range (with a 1-mile accuracy) so how will this threaten the United States? They can threaten only states in the region: Iran (oh darn), Saudi Arabia (ditto), Israel, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Of those states the only ones that remotely concern me are Kuwait and Israel, and I'm caring about Kuwait less and less with ever Kuwaiti terrorist attack on US soldiers defending their country. That leaves Israel. Israel just brought online a missile defense system consisting of both Arrow (long range) and Patriot PAC-3 (short range). Assuming one of those missiles armed with WMD gets through - and remember that Iraq has no capability to put anything other than conventional warheads on Scuds - Israel then retaliates with nuclear weapons upon Iraq and any other Arab/Muslim country stupid enought to go to Iraq's aid. Sounds good to me. Bush completely overstates the Iraqi non-threat in order for one thing: oil. That's not a bad thing but he should stop lying to the American people by claiming he's sending OUR BOYS TO DIE because of "weapons of mass destruction".
Originally Posted By tulsacmpshooter: I think they hid the unranuim in Sadam's sons Leg. Didn't you see him hobbling around on crutches.:-) I wish Bush would come on TV and show the proof and say check mate as our boys kick in sadams' bedroom door.
View Quote
You might be on to something here [:)] - Saddam tried to have him killed so I guess it's possible the bullet was filled with uranium or plutonium...
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 1:47:25 PM EST
I don't know or care if they have them. I'm still pissed enough about 9/11 to say that we should take out Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, etc...... Then again, I've been at a football party all day, drinking to excess.....
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 2:36:27 PM EST
I get DAMNED tired of the screw America crowd saying the impending war on Iraq is about "oil". That is a cover for their opposition to the war on any terms. OF COURSE we should go to war for oil! WTF do you think America runs on, peanuts? We should have leveled the Mid East in 73 over the act of war called an embargo. We should have blockaded the REGION and prevent ONE BITE of food from entering, THEN bombed it to the stone age - oops, can't do that because they already live 1400 years in the past! Oil is an EXCELLENT reason to declare war on these terrorist morons. Let's just not stop with Iraq(and we may not!!). After the troops and equipment are in place, we should subdue the entire Mid East and be done with it. While I prefer obliterating much of it with nukes, a few weeks of conventional warfare will do. Wake up people, we are already at war. It was declared by the other side 9/11/01! IMHO a state of war has existed since they attacked our oil supply 30 years ago. Death to OPEC!!!
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 3:03:27 PM EST
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: I get DAMNED tired of the screw America crowd saying the impending war on Iraq is about "oil". That is a cover for their opposition to the war on any terms. OF COURSE we should go to war for oil! WTF do you think America runs on, peanuts? We should have leveled the Mid East in 73 over the act of war called an embargo. We should have blockaded the REGION and prevent ONE BITE of food from entering, THEN bombed it to the stone age - oops, can't do that because they already live 1400 years in the past! Oil is an EXCELLENT reason to declare war on these terrorist morons. Let's just not stop with Iraq(and we may not!!). After the troops and equipment are in place, we should subdue the entire Mid East and be done with it. While I prefer obliterating much of it with nukes, a few weeks of conventional warfare will do. Wake up people, we are already at war. It was declared by the other side 9/11/01! IMHO a state of war has existed since they attacked our oil supply 30 years ago. Death to OPEC!!!
View Quote
Likely the most reasoned position yet taken on this thread. ops
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 9:34:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/5/2003 9:37:52 PM EST by libertyof76]
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: I get DAMNED tired of the screw America crowd saying the impending war on Iraq is about "oil". That is a cover for their opposition to the war on any terms.
View Quote
And I get damned tired of the American Empire crowd crowing about a nonexistent threat that we must meet with the death of our boys. Is this war about oil? Probably not. Its about power and empire. Its not about security, its not about defense, and it sure as hell isn't about liberty.
OF COURSE we should go to war for oil!
View Quote
The hell we should. War is not, and should not be about mercantilist ideals. We fought a war to get away from government monopolies and subsidies to an industry. War should only be about self-defense. This is one reason that I, and the Founders, opposed a standing army. Without a standing army a government cannot go on crusades for some dumb cause, but can still provide defense with a militia. Switzerland is an excellent example of this.
WTF do you think America runs on, peanuts?
View Quote
America runs on business, and they will find a way to provide what America needs, if only the government wasn't in the way. The Middle East isn't the only place to get oil, there is Mexico, Russia, and domestically. The government should decide where oil comes from and how much it is- that is called socialism.
We should have leveled the Mid East in 73 over the act of war called an embargo.
View Quote
I didn't know that the Mid East had ships around our shores blocking oil from coming in to the US. Oh you mean they didn't? Well, that's not an embargo. The mideast decided not to sell us any oil- that is called the free market. If they don't want to sell us oil, that is their loss, because then they lose A LOT of money. We can easily find it someplace else. And that is what happened- they realized they needed the money from us, and ended the boycott. What made the situation a crisis is the government's price controls.
We should have blockaded the REGION and prevent ONE BITE of food from entering
View Quote
So we should punish the people for something their government does? We should kill 500,000 children like we did in Iraq? That is like terrorists flying a plane into a private building full of innocent people because the government supplies Israel with money and arms, has troops in a holy place, and bombs Muslims.
Oil is an EXCELLENT reason to declare war on these terrorist morons.
View Quote
It is the worst reason ever. It is an unjust war, completely against the Christian Just War Theory. And it won't help the oil situation anyway. Prices will RISE during the war, but they will never come down to pre-war prices, because the government's subsidized monopoly business getting oil from the fields will keep the prices high because there is no competition. Government will be the worst manager of oil, just like they are the worst at everything they do.
Let's just not stop with Iraq(and we may not!!).
View Quote
Let's not even start with Iraq. Do you really want plentiful oil? First start by ending the taxes on gas, which make up around 40-60% of the price, and other taxes. Then end all trade barriers and tariffs with other countries. Then pull the all the troops home and have them guard America's borders and shores. Repeal environmental, transportation, and safety laws. With the drastic price drop not only in gas price, but other products related to cars from reduced taxes, since the government isn't spending as much, and from the hidden costs of complying with the repealed laws, more people will buy gas and things that run on gas, because it is cheaper and they now have more money to spend. With more people buying gas, oil companies will see the demand, and will start supplying more oil. Problem solved.
After the troops and equipment are in place, we should subdue the entire Mid East and be done with it.
View Quote
As if it will be as easy done as said. It won't. It will cause terrorism to sky rocket, not only overseas, but most especially here. We will lose lots of American soldiers and civilians. Government spending will skyrocket to meet the needs of the war and the needs of the increase police state that will arise at home because of the terrorism. Taxes and inflation will skyrocket to meet the government spending. The economy will stagnate, and America will slowly die, become just like the European nations we so desperately hated back in the 1700's. Liberty will be gone, and tyranny will be here. Thanks.
While I prefer obliterating much of it with nukes, a few weeks of conventional warfare will do.
View Quote
So you prefer to kill millions of innocent people who have done NOTHING to you or America, who are just trying to survive on the brutal regimes they are under? That REAL American- not. And Weeks? Try YEARS, years of blood and tyranny. American will be an Empire, and we will fail just like every other one. America will no longer be the beacon for Liberty, because we will be the enemy of it.
Wake up people, we are already at war. It was declared by the other side 9/11/01! IMHO a state of war has existed since they attacked our oil supply 30 years ago. Death to OPEC!!!
View Quote
I think you need to wake up and read history. The path you want us to take will lead to the end of America, and we will get less security, less liberty, and higher prices of your precious oil. Talk about screwing America- you exemplify it. And we are NOT at war. 9/11 was not an act of war- just a horrific criminal act by non-state actors. We have not been attacked since then. 9/11 was about getting back at a government that meddled where it shouldn't have, but by killing people who had nothing to do with it. BTW, did you hear the quote by Bin Laden on one of his tapes: "If America increases her tensions, we will do likewise." What he is saying is that if America stops killing and meddling, so will Bin Laden. Doesn't fit the "they hate us because we are free" charge(even though we are doing our damnedest to be less free.) I am surprised and shocked that someone like yourself can be an America because you turn your back on its history and its foundations.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 2:18:33 AM EST
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Is this war about oil? Probably not. Its about power and empire. Its not about security, its not about defense, and it sure as hell isn't about liberty.
View Quote
Nope, you're wrong on all counts. It is most certainly about security and defense and it will surely give the Iraqi people more liberty than they have now.
The hell we should. War is not, and should not be about mercantilist ideals.
View Quote
Yet many of the wars (perhaps even the majority of wars) ever fought were indeed about mercantilism.
I am surprised and shocked that someone like yourself can be an America because you turn your back on its history and its foundations.
View Quote
And I am totally unsurprised that you again show how little you know about history. It's symptiomatic of your posts.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 2:20:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By libertyof76: Imaginary evidence doesn't count.
View Quote
Good, that takes care of any evidence you've had any education in history or politics then.
Where is this so-called evidence anyway?
View Quote
The evidence has been there for years. We KNOW they had WMDs in 98 and they haven't had inspectors since then. Only a naive and simplistic person would think they destroyed them on their own.
Link Posted: 1/6/2003 12:23:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/6/2003 12:24:28 PM EST by Horseman]
Let's see if I can get the nested quotes looking right...
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By MickeyMouse: Is this war about oil? Probably not. Its about power and empire. Its not about security, its not about defense, and it sure as hell isn't about liberty.
View Quote
View Quote
North America has really only rarely had to worry about securing material commodities. Sure, there are probably some planners, busy scribbling away a structured resource exploitation plan, but I doubt any such would come to pass. I would suggest, though, that the upcoming unpleasantness really is about defense and security. Not that taking out Iraq will make us safer or more defensible, of course. Near as I can tell, our strategic objective is to make a demonstration. In the last decade, we went to war against this same little tyrant, but we failed to see it through to the end. Later, we deployed to Somalia, and let ourselves (to the eyes of the Islamic world) be cast back into the sea. Later still, we take a hit to the USS Cole, and we suffer a direct and terrible attack on our own people on 9/11. Right now, we appear to be pretty vulnerable, demoralized, disorganized, and confused. Thus, the object of the demonstration, will be to show off our warfare capability, and get the message across that we'd best be left unhindered. There are two rules for the politics of countering asymmetric threats such as terrorism. The first is to enhance the sense of safety for your constituents. The second is to enhance the sense of peril to your foes. (the astute reader will notice that neither rule automatically brings us closer to real safety or security) It's unfortunate. In a way, we're in a real bind, and we don't have many alternatives to war. We can't very well go back and fix the British mismanagement of Palestine after WWII. We' can't very well go back and complete our last war in Iraq. We also can't very well ignore the threats presented, in the order they present themselves, whether real or spectacle. After much pondering, I really can't see a graceful way out of our current path, without causing everyone much greater grief.
OF COURSE we should go to war for oil!
View Quote
The hell we should. War is not, and should not be about mercantilist ideals. We fought a war to get away from government monopolies and subsidies to an industry. War should only be about self-defense. This is one reason that I, and the Founders, opposed a standing army. Without a standing army a government cannot go on crusades for some dumb cause, but can still provide defense with a militia. Switzerland is an excellent example of this.
View Quote
Agreed, and I sorely wish this could be our present case. Seems I heard somewhere a snappy line about a tangled web of alliances and treaties...
We should have leveled the Mid East in 73 over the act of war called an embargo.
View Quote
I didn't know that the Mid East had ships around our shores blocking oil from coming in to the US. Oh you mean they didn't? Well, that's not an embargo. The mideast decided not to sell us any oil- that is called the free market. If they don't want to sell us oil, that is their loss, because then they lose A LOT of money. We can easily find it someplace else. And that is what happened- they realized they needed the money from us, and ended the boycott. What made the situation a crisis is the government's price controls.
View Quote
OPEC is a cartel, and do their best to suppress the best parts of a free market. My take on their actions is that the nations represented in OPEC siezed the opportunity to use their export commodity for leverage. Once again, we became a target, more because of inherited ill will than anything else. Anybody remember how Venezuela, a member of OPEC, voted on that matter? If they'd been hesitant to throw in on the oil embargo (term I recall from seeing media clips from the time, correct or not, Libertyof76!), it might have been a chance to offer them a big, fat, exclusive purchase contract for their oil, encouraging them to depart OPEC in exchange for huge profits. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned that 1973 was, in US history, a *very* bad time to be suggesting embroilment in a war on foreign soil.
We should have blockaded the REGION and prevent ONE BITE of food from entering
View Quote
So we should punish the people for something their government does? We should kill 500,000 children like we did in Iraq? That is like terrorists flying a plane into a private building full of innocent people because the government supplies Israel with money and arms, has troops in a holy place, and bombs Muslims.
View Quote
I have mixed ideas on this particular issue. On the one hand, yes, punishing the population is a bad idea on many levels. On the other hand, their nations are the ones who opened up the commodity=leverage can of worms. The ability to exert one nation's will upon another comes in many forms... warfare, money, ideological. When those options run out, history sees asymmetric leverage being used... assassination, terror, embargo. It's always a disappointing thing, trying to ponder the behavior of nations as if they were people. I believe the best solution to the commodity leverage problem, is simply to institute a permanent policy of tariff and restriction. When one of our exports/imports is restricted, one of their imports/exports, of similar relative importance, is restricted in the same way and to the same degree. When they lift restrictions, so do we.
I think you need to wake up and read history. The path you want us to take will lead to the end of America, and we will get less security, less liberty, and higher prices of your precious oil. Talk about screwing America- you exemplify it.
View Quote
Agreed. Warfare leads to generations-long consequenses, for all involved... liberty, economy, health, security... all take a hit, and it takes a long time and a lot of work to recover. The USA must avoid war when it is possible, but when it is required, we should have no qualm, we should be quick, and we should be thorough. When we drag it out (to include the Wars on Poverty and Terror, and the first and second War on Drugs), things just turn out badly for us.
And we are NOT at war. 9/11 was not an act of war- just a horrific criminal act by non-state actors. We have not been attacked since then. 9/11 was about getting back at a government that meddled where it shouldn't have, but by killing people who had nothing to do with it.
View Quote
State sponsorship of the terrorists and/or their network makes it a bit difficult to classify as a purely criminal act. I believe the best thing would be to classify that attack, and most terrorism, as state-sponsored espionage, sabotage, or assassination. (Ack! My fingers are now 2mm shorter!) (edited to get the quotebacks looking right)
Top Top