No shit, Sherlock.

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Friday, June 13, 2008 03:46
VIEWED: 7860
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Thursday, June 5, 2008 5:23 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/05/AR2008
060501523.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

President Bush and his top aides repeatedly exaggerated what they knew about the threat from Iraqi nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as the administration pressed its case for war against Iraq, the Senate intelligence committee said today in a long-awaited report.

While most of the administration's pre-war claims about Iraq reflected now-discredited U.S. intelligence reports, the White House crossed a line by conveying certainty about Saddam Hussein's ability to threaten the United States with weapons of mass destruction, according to the report approved by the committee's Democratic leaders and a handful of Republicans.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even non-existent," committee chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said at a news conference. "As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Thursday, June 5, 2008 7:18 PM

"Committee Vice Chairman Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.) noted that key Democrats--including several who ran for the presidential nomination this year--also made public statements during the same period portraying Iraq's weapons as a threat to the United States.

The new report is a long-awaited final chapter in a series of Senate reports on the intelligence failures in the run-up to the Iraq war. The first in the series of reports, in July 2004, focused on flaws in intelligence-gathering and analysis but put off the politically explosive question of whether Bush administration officials deliberately distorted or misused the information they were given. The final report was delayed as Republican and Democrat committees members clashed repeatedly over what the report should say and, indeed, if such a report was still necessary.

The earlier Senate report, released when Republicans controlled the chamber, concluded unanimously that U.S. intelligence agencies had botched the task of assessing Iraq's WMD capability. It said key intelligence reports made unwarranted assumptions and overstated what was then known about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs. It faulted the CIA and other agencies for failing to cultivate reliable informants and for basing key assessments on extrapolation and inference."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, June 5, 2008 7:54 PM

Quote:
... key Democrats--including several who ran for the presidential nomination this year--also made public statements during the same period portraying Iraq's weapons as a threat to the United States.

Congressmen based their decisions on the NIE they were given, which was fudged - by the administration - in the way described.
The caveats - for example the DOE analysis that aluminum tubes were useless for centrifuges, disagreements - for example the State Department's assessment the uranium document was a forgery, the uncertainties - for example the CIA's acknowledgement that while they had no proof Hussein did NOT have WMD they also had no proof he DID - were either put in a addendum that wasn't attached (the DOE findings) or deleted all together (CIA's).
This was a pattern time after time after time.
I found about those through careful listening to the news. Often there was only one report - broadcast on the radio, usually in the morning - where these items could be found.
But Congressmen in their official duties depended on the official report. Which was - as is being pointed out at long last - a product of a dishonest administration who took good work done by analysts and threw it away in order TO LIE.

Quote:
The final report was delayed as Republican and Democrat committees members clashed repeatedly over what the report should say and, indeed, if such a report was still necessary.

The report was slated to be done in two parts - the second half to take place AFTER the 2004 elections. Let me say that again, with emphasis - THE REPORT WAS SLATED TO BE DONE IN TWO PARTS. It was put off for purely political reasons. And now the repubiccans are crying foul for political reason b/c the task came due. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. Your lovely repubiccans are putting their political agenda ahead of national security - AGAIN. And you're standing by them. Why am I not surprised ?

Quote:
... concluded unanimously that U.S. intelligence agencies had botched the task of assessing Iraq's WMD capability ...

What the report actually said - ahem - I've read it, have you ? - in sum - the rush job done by the CIA under pressure from the administration to put together the NIE gave insufficient space and attention to the caveats, disagreements and uncertainties noted by the many intelligence agencies. The information was there - the political process of putting the report together was faulty.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 5, 2008 8:02 PM

See, WE'VE known this for some time, and SOME will refuse to believe the truth even now; SOME will die believing the Lie (tm). Yeah, Dems effed up too, but the real s**t starts from the top.

So there Chrisisall

KWICKO

Thursday, June 5, 2008 8:42 PM

Quote:
...the Senate intelligence committee said today in a long-awaited report.

That was my favorite part. "Long-awaited". Ummmmm.... yeah. Too bad it came 5.5 years too late to save thousands of American soldiers...

:(

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

AURAPTOR

Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:18 PM

" ....according to the report approved by the committee's Democratic leaders and a handful of Republicans."

Nothing, and let me stress this point, NOTHING but pure, unadulterated and absolute arrogant politics at work here.

Complete and utter bullshit.

The Dems knew as much, if not more and knew even before Bush was in office. This is what I hate about politics. It leads parties , like the Democrats, to putting party politics above love for country.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
See, WE'VE known this for some time, and SOME will refuse to believe the truth even now; SOME will die believing the Lie (tm). Yeah, Dems effed up too, but the real s**t starts from the top.

So there Chrisisall

There's no TRUTH here, as YOU see it. It's nothing but the far Left wingers, feeling their oats, and trying to frame their opponents in a negative light.

Kudos to Bush for doing the right thing, when it was popular, and not even when it's not. A true leader.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:30 PM

Quote:
The Dems knew as much, if not more and knew even before Bush was in office. This is what I hate about politics. It leads parties , like the Democrats, to putting party politics above love for country.

Yah, the Republicans would NEVER put party politics above love for country... [sarcasm]

Quote:
It's nothing but the far Left wingers, feeling their oats, and trying to frame their opponents in a negative light.

Kudos to Bush... A true leader.

As you so often say, "Prove it."

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
There's no TRUTH here, moron. It's nothing but the far Left wingers, feeling their oats, and trying to frame their opponents in a negative light.

Hey- why is it when I say Bush is a idiot, your feathers get all ruffled, but not when I say Clinton was also?
Partisan much?
Reality check, AU, there IS no "good" party, pal, money sees to that.
And I ain't a maroon!

Quote:

Kudos to Bush for doing the right thing, when it was popular, and not even when it's not. A true leader.

*choke, cough...*

Soda-in-the-nose Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 5, 2008 9:33 PM

Quote:
Nothing, and let me stress this point, NOTHING but pure, unadulterated and absolute arrogant politics at work here.

Yeah, kinda like the Republicans delaying this par (Part 2) of the report while they were a majority. Or forcing the Dems who wanted to hold a discussion on the topic into a small basement room, and then turning off the lights. Or refusing to testify under oath. Or refusing to testify at all.

This is very much the pot calling the kettle black, Rap. Sure this is politics. It's grandstanding, and it's too bad the Dems didn't have more backbone earlier in the process. But it's less harmful than what the Republicans have done. It's too bad you can't see "your side" for the slippery politicos that they really are.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 5, 2008 11:16 PM

A Dem lets folk get killed while lining their pockets; a Rep GETS folk killed while lining their FRIEND'S pockets.

But, that's a generalization. It's the individual person that makes the difference.

Non-partisan Chrisisall

GEEZER

Thursday, June 5, 2008 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

I found about those through careful listening to the news. Often there was only one report - broadcast on the radio, usually in the morning - where these items could be found.
But Congressmen in their official duties depended on the official report.

If you could find this stuff, Congresspersons and their staffs should have been able to as well. Either the majority were remarkably naive and easily led, or they were more interested in going along with the 'war on terror' to gain votes. Bush couldn't have gone into Iraq without the support of Congress, and they gave it to him.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, June 5, 2008 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What the report actually said - ahem - I've read it, have you ? - in sum - the rush job done by the CIA under pressure from the administration to put together the NIE gave insufficient space and attention to the caveats, disagreements and uncertainties noted by the many intelligence agencies. The information was there - the political process of putting the report together was faulty.

You wanna argue that, argue with the Post. I just quoted from the article you linked.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 6, 2008 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Bush couldn't have gone into Iraq without the support of Congress, and they gave it to him.

[AU-talk]
Geezer, that's flat out untrue- it's just partisan lies from your righty mentality, you moron. Prove it! You can't, because it's lies, lies, lies! Congress is true leadership, and they wouldn't just do that. The Democrats were fooled, coerced & forced to do what they did. You have no respect for the visionaries of our country, the true heroes of our Democracy!
[/AU-talk]

See? I can deny reality with the best of 'em!

isall

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 6, 2008 12:26 AM

( For some reason, the fff.net is having difficulties loading pages for me ...grrrr )

2nd time I'm attempting to post this, or something close to it.

Bush went to war knowing what every other Senator and Congressman knew , and a few knew even more. That Saddam, after 10+ yrs of failing to abide by UN rules, wasn't going to give in. He simply wasn't. AThe intel Bush had, strongly suggested that Iraq had or would restart its WMD program as soon as the UN backed off. And after 9/11 , even if some the intel was ambiguous, NOT acting would have been damn near criminal. Especially when you have the head of your CIA ( a Clinton hold over, why he was still there, we may NEVER know ) is telling you that it's a SLAM DUNK on Iraq and WMD. As President, you HAVE to act.

And now we know it was the U.N., playing footsies under the table by making the Food for Oil program a complete ruse, all the while the U.S.A. was being accused of the deaths of all those malnourished Iraqi children, who weren't getting the food/ medicine they needed. The FACTS were, it wasn't the USA's fault,but Saddam and the U.N's!

We also know that 'containment' was a joke, as Saddam planned to reinvigorate his programs after the U.N. left him alone, so it was all just a waiting game, a game the U.S. wasn't going to allow Saddam to win. And we didn't.

I'm sorry, but that's exactly how it is, and I'm fracking damn tired of having to repeat myself ,over and over again until I'm blue in the face , but it seems some of you simply don't WANT to hear the facts. ALL some of you care about is that Bush is evil for stealing the 2000 election, the one which he WON, by every god damn legal count known to mankind, and yet you STILL hold a childish grudge over events from 7 yrs ago.

Now, lets see if this damn page will DL this time.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 6, 2008 12:35 AM

The Dems are equally, if not MORE wrong guilty for this war, and they know it. They knew YEARS in advance that Saddam was bucking the cease fire agreements, the U.N. resolutions, and were content to play the game of containment. A game Saddam could have won, had we allowed it to endure.

Thankfully Bush didn't sit around and do nothing. He got approval form Congress , based on the best intel ANYONE had, and decided to act on what was known. Some gutless bureaucrats in the intel agencies then back tracked, saying that they DIDN'T know as much as they were saying they knew, all in a petty attempt to save their asses. We pay them billions of $$'s a year, and the best that some of them could do is say " Ummmm... we dunno. Maybe? " FUCK THAT! At least the HEAD of the CIA was more outright, stating it was a SLAM DUNK, and that's exactly what he told the President. When you head of intelligence tells you something that emphatic, you don't so casually dismiss it. It SHOULD means something.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 6, 2008 12:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
When you head of intelligence tells you something that emphatic, you don't so casually dismiss it. It SHOULD means something.

Too bad it didn't.

There's a lot of fact in what you say, AU, it's your interpretations I have problems with.
For the record, I will repeat something- when we roared into Afghanistan to blast the Taliban, I was like, "Maybe I was wrong about Bush...he's DOING something...!!!"

Then came the do-over in Iraq...

CIA

KWICKO

Friday, June 6, 2008 12:55 AM

Quote:
Bush...A true leader.

"I'm their leader. Which way did they go?"

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
( For some reason, the fff.net is having difficulties loading pages for me ...grrrr )

That ain't just you. It's doing it to us all.

Quote:

We also know that 'containment' was a joke, as Saddam planned to reinvigorate his programs after the U.N. left him alone, so it was all just a waiting game, a game the U.S. wasn't going to allow Saddam to win. And we didn't.

We don't "know" any such thing about containment or WHAT Saddam's plans were for after the UN left him alone. You're right about one thing - Saddam didn't win, and we didn't, either.

Quote:
ALL some of you care about is that Bush is evil for stealing the 2000 election, the one which he WON, by every god damn legal count known to mankind, and yet you STILL hold a childish grudge over events from 7 yrs ago.

That's not ALL we care about, but by the way, how many of those "god damn legal" counts were there? The Supreme Court stopped the LEGAL recount. Most - if not all - counts showed that Gore clearly won the popular vote.

And how long have you been holding a "childish grudge" over events from before that, when Bill Clinton was President? 15 years now?

One question: You seem to think that we should all just trust the President in all cases, because to question him or his actions is un-American. Will you be so trusting of President Obama? Will you be so sure to insist that he could never lie, because a President is just incapable of it?

Didn't think so. As usual, you'll put party politics over love for country... How very expected of you.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

RUE

Friday, June 6, 2008 12:56 AM

Geezer

"If you could find this stuff, Congresspersons and their staffs should have been able to as well."

Why oh why are you always such an ass-wipe ??

YOU'VE worked for government. YOU know that no one gets to act on news-stories, only official reports. And here you are, pretending like no such thing ever crossed your mind, just to have your stupid, partisan, and totally fallacious little snit fit.

No wonder people don't trust you - you've done this far too often, far too badly, and got caught far too many times. It's not even slick anymore. Just crude, stupid and dishonest.

***************************************************************
And BTW - anyone who thought Geezer might be a libertarian - take heed. THIS is what he really is - a partisan totally in tune with any and every force, spying and deception government wants to do. To you.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 6, 2008 1:06 AM

Quote:
The Dems are equally, if not MORE wrong guilty for this war, and they know it. They knew YEARS in advance that Saddam was bucking the cease fire agreements, the U.N. resolutions, and were content to play the game of containment. A game Saddam could have won, had we allowed it to endure.

Now, see, this is where you lose me. The thing that you keep igonring, over and over again, is the UNMOVIC inspections. It's as if they never happened. I agree that without the inspections it would have been difficult to know what Saddam was up to, or not, as the case may be. But the inspections were generating new and better information and they were getting directives from the CIA based in satellite information.

Quote:
Thankfully Bush didn't sit around and do nothing. He got approval form Congress , based on the best intel ANYONE had

Again I reference the UNMOVIC inspections which were generating current information... as opposed to "intel" from ten years ago.

Quote:
and decided to act on what was known. Some gutless bureaucrats in the intel agencies then back tracked, saying that they DIDN'T know as much as they were saying they knew, all in a petty attempt to save their asses.

Only someone completely unfamilair with what actually happened would say that. Cheney had formed a Special Operations team whose SOLE PURPOSE was to bypass the "vetting" of Iraqi intel by the REAL intelligence agnecies. That's when the terms "stovepiping" (chanelling supporting information directly to the highest levels) and "cherry picking" (being very selective about info) came into wide use.

Quote:
We pay them billions of $$'s a year, and the best that some of them could do is say " Ummmm... we dunno. Maybe? "

That's not what they said.

Quote:
FUCK THAT! At least the HEAD of the CIA was more outright, stating it was a SLAM DUNK, and that's exactly what he told the President.

Umm... yes, the Head of the CIA whom Bush appointed. So Bush's handpicked appointee told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear? Who'da thunk???

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

KIRKULES

Friday, June 6, 2008 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
FUCK THAT! At least the HEAD of the CIA was more outright, stating it was a SLAM DUNK, and that's exactly what he told the President.
Umm... yes, the Head of the CIA whom Bush appointed. So Bush's handpicked appointee told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear? Who'da thunk???

You might want to check your facts here. Tenet was appointed by your hero Bill Clinton.

RUE

Friday, June 6, 2008 1:39 AM

You might want to do a little fact checking yourself. Tenet was kept on by baby Bush, defying normal procedure during transitions, after a tete-a-tete between the two of them. He was in effect re-appointed by Bush, and had to hew closely to what was wanted of him to survive the dem / rep divide between himself and the Bush administration.

"While the Director of Central Intelligence has typically been replaced by an incoming administration ever since Jimmy Carter replaced DCI George H. W. Bush, Tenet served through the end of the Clinton administration and well into the term of George W. Bush."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 6, 2008 1:56 AM

Quote:
We don't "know" any such thing about containment or WHAT Saddam's plans were for after the UN left him alone. You're right about one thing - Saddam didn't win, and we didn't, either.

We'd never have known anything until we toppled Saddam's regime. That's when we found out what we know today.

Quote:
Most - if not all - counts showed that Gore clearly won the popular vote.

Gore won the popular vote of the nation, that's never been in dispute. The catch is, the " popular vote" has never been the deciding factor in how the President is elected. Still, what Gore DIDN'T win was Florida. 2 news papers went in and recounted every ballot cast in the 2000 election. Bush won.

Quote:

And how long have you been holding a "childish grudge" over events from before that, when Bill Clinton was President? 15 years now?

Bill did what he did. There's no grudge found on my part. Dunno why you even bring him into this discussion.

Quote:
One question: You seem to think that we should all just trust the President in all cases, because to question him or his actions is un-American. Will you be so trusting of President Obama? Will you be so sure to insist that he could never lie, because a President is just incapable of it?

Didn't think so. As usual, you'll put party politics over love for country... How very expected of you.

If you're reading that I suggest we blindly trust the President, then you're reading words that I'm not posting. Point of fact, the case for the war in Iraq was made, in large part, even BEFORE Bush was elected. How ? It was made by virtually every Democrat on the Hill, including the one in the White House. The VERY WORDS they used to describe Saddam are EXACTLY what Bush said, and yet he gets accused of fixing intel or " lying " . Complete and utter bullshit, sorry.

I never put party in front of country. Ever. I'll speak out against Bush for his immigration policy, because I think the nation is more important than his love for Federal bureaucracy. I'm furious at him and McCain for sounding exactly like Democrats when it comes to such issues, as immigration and 'global warming'. I think nearly all the DEMS and GOPers are simply playing big $$ politics on these issues, and are subverting national interest.

So much for your "childish" attempt to paint me that which I'm not.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, June 6, 2008 2:06 AM

Quote:
We'd never have known anything until we toppled Saddam's regime. That's when we found out what we know today.

Aside from the UN inspectors under Blix who were within weeks of correctly verifying Iraq to be WMD-free:

ARE YOU NOW SAYING THERE WERE NO WND ??

Because if you are, that would be a breakthrough in your re-integration with reality.

***************************************************************
And after that, we can work on your belief in the "roaring economy".

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 6, 2008 2:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
We'd never have known anything until we toppled Saddam's regime. That's when we found out what we know today.
Aside from the UN inspectors under Blix who were within weeks of correctly verifying Iraq to be WMD-free:

ARE YOU NOW SAYING THERE WERE NO WND ??

Because if you are, that would be a breakthrough in your re-integration with reality.

***************************************************************
And after that, we can work on your belief in the "roaring economy".

Once again, you have it wrong. The U.N. wasn't there to "verify" Iraq to be WMD free. It was there to address serious issues as to what Iraq did w/ WMD it ADMITTED TO HAVING, but then claimed it disposed of, "sometime " during the past 10 yrs. Only a dupe of the highest magnitude would believe that , after 10+ yrs of playing "Where's the WMD ? " with Saddam , that we were with in " weeks " of finally packing up and going home. The U.N. wanted to know what was destroyed, how, when, where and by what methods. Iraq was reluctant to tell us much in the way of details, which is why the shell game they played w/ the Inspectors not only took so long but also eventually cost Saddam his head.

As for the economy, you'll note that when I ORIGINALLY made that statement, the economy had been doing very well for quite some time. Leave it to you to bring out and old point to try to assign it to different times. Same goes for the new housing industry. There WAS a boom, then it leveled off and then the bubble burst. Happens w/ everything, it's a cycle. You can't hold me accountable for comments made in the midst of an upswing, then perpetually hold me to that statement for ALL times. And btw, the reports out of the US economy being in a recession are premature, if you've been paying attention.

Sales are up. , more than expected and so is growth.

But keep looking for those 2 quarters of negative growth. We're sure to have that should Obama win the election.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 6, 2008 2:45 AM

Damn lag.

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 6, 2008 3:16 AM

Double damn lag

RUE

Friday, June 6, 2008 3:38 AM

So, are you NOW saying there were no WNDs ? Yes or no. It's that simple.

No, the economy hadn't been doing well, let alone very well. That's what makes it so funny. That's why it's such a great gag.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

KWICKO

Friday, June 6, 2008 4:19 AM

Quote:
I'm furious at him and McCain for sounding exactly like Democrats when it comes to such issues, as immigration and 'global warming'. I think nearly all the DEMS and GOPers are simply playing big $$ politics on these issues, and are subverting national interest.

So are you NOW saying that Bush lied? You've always maintained that he "never lied" (your words, quoted exactly as you typed them). Now Bush says that Global Warming is real and that it is being caused by man. So was he lying then, or is he lying now?

Also, if Obama inherits an economy that's deep in the shitter, you view such a recession as HIS fault, huh? Even though you're quick to point out that the one Bush had was in no way his doing, but the result of an economy already on the downswing.

Good to know you're not putting party ahead of country...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

SIGNYM

Friday, June 6, 2008 4:30 AM

Quote:
Tenet was appointed by your hero Bill Clinton.

And Re-appointed by Bush. I'd think you'd know that.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, June 6, 2008 4:52 AM

Quote:
Once again, you have it wrong. The U.N. wasn't there to "verify" Iraq to be WMD free. It was there to address serious issues as to what Iraq did w/ WMD it ADMITTED TO HAVING, but then claimed it disposed of, "sometime " during the past 10 yrs. Only a dupe of the highest magnitude would believe that , after 10+ yrs of playing "Where's the WMD ? " with Saddam , that we were with in " weeks " of finally packing up and going home. The U.N. wanted to know what was destroyed, how, when, where and by what methods. which is why the shell game they played w/ the Inspectors not only took so long but also eventually cost Saddam his head.

Well, UNMOVIC claimed to be within weeks of concluding their inspection. So yes, they really were within weeks. AFA Iraq not showing how the WMD were destroyed... Our own army destroyed a lot of those WMD after the Gulf War, the Iraq Army had been disasterously routed and you're thinking... paperwork? There was stuff out there that even Saddam didn't know about, which is why so many old shells were found in bunkers here and there... as you well know. So, instead of drawing the logical conclusion that WMD were destroyed willy-nilly by both sides of the gulf war, or lost, you figure that all of this was deliberate on Saddam's part. Rap, all the pieces of the puzzle are sitting right in front of you, self-explanatory, and then you insist on putting them together into a completely alien picture that doesn't even make any sense.

But yeah- at least you're finally coming around to the idea that there really were no WMD.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 6, 2008 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

"If you could find this stuff, Congresspersons and their staffs should have been able to as well."

Why oh why are you always such an ass-wipe ?? ...

No wonder people don't trust you

Speak for yourself rue. Is Geezer partisan? ayup. And I disagree with him at least half the time, but his posts are far more reasonable and 'trust' worthy than your frantic mud slinging.

What pisses you off is that he's right. The democrats had all the power they needed to put a halt to the war march (and the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo, and Homeland Insecurity, etc, etc, etc,,,), but they were too chickenshit to stand up for anything beyond their short-sighted political gain. I suspect, sadly, that we'll have the next four years to see just what a much of spineless hypocrites they really are.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, June 6, 2008 5:17 AM

Oh SergeantX

You're so cute when you're talking out of your ass.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 6, 2008 5:23 AM

Its just disappointing to see you slipping into a left-wing parody of auraptor. You can do better.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

KIRKULES

Friday, June 6, 2008 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Tenet was appointed by your hero Bill Clinton.
And Re-appointed by Bush. I'd think you'd know that.

---------------------------------

I think it's quite obvious that I knew Tenet was reappointed by Bush. You're the one that did'nt know it tell you looked it up. You were caught making an ass out of yourself, why don't you just admit it. Your exact quote was "Bush's hand picked appointee".

KIRKULES

Friday, June 6, 2008 9:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You might want to do a little fact checking yourself. Tenet was kept on by baby Bush, defying normal procedure during transitions, after a tete-a-tete between the two of them. He was in effect re-appointed by Bush, and had to hew closely to what was wanted of him to survive the dem / rep divide between himself and the Bush administration.

"While the Director of Central Intelligence has typically been replaced by an incoming administration ever since Jimmy Carter replaced DCI George H. W. Bush, Tenet served through the end of the Clinton administration and well into the term of George W. Bush."

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, June 6, 2008 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You might want to do a little fact checking yourself. Tenet was kept on by baby Bush, defying normal procedure during transitions, after a tete-a-tete between the two of them. He was in effect re-appointed by Bush, and had to hew closely to what was wanted of him to survive the dem / rep divide between himself and the Bush administration.

"While the Director of Central Intelligence has typically been replaced by an incoming administration ever since Jimmy Carter replaced DCI George H. W. Bush, Tenet served through the end of the Clinton administration and well into the term of George W. Bush."

Great post!

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 6, 2008 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, are you NOW saying there were no WNDs ? Yes or no. It's that simple.

No, the economy hadn't been doing well, let alone very well. That's what makes it so funny. That's why it's such a great gag.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

Yes, there were WMD , and yes, the economy was doing very well, despite the fact that some areas, where manufacturing is concerned, were hurting. Economist were concerned that the economy might be growing TOO fast, but thankfully that wasn't the case, and most were pleased w/ how it was performing, as is. Them's the facts.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

RUE

Friday, June 6, 2008 7:06 PM

SergeantX

I can guarantee that you, Geezer, Rap, Kirkules and Jong never read the first half of the report, that you never will, and that you never will read the second half either.

Given that, how DO you know I'm being a left-wing parody of Rap ? That I'm not simply reporting what was in there ? The answer is - you don't. So you and pretty much everyone else are just talking out of your asses - again - with petty, partisan ignorance. As usual.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Its just disappointing to see you slipping into a left-wing parody of auraptor. You can do better.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 6, 2008 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Yes, there were WMD

As in, yes there was a flood...just, y'know, not any more.

Quote:
, and yes, the economy was doing very well,

As in, the patient has a tumour, but he seems to be doing very well....

Quote:
Them's the facts.

As in, I get a rash every time I swim at the YMCA pool, so I must be sensitive to H2O....

You are SUCH a biped, AU.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 6, 2008 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

The democrats had all the power they needed to put a halt to the war march (and the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo, and Homeland Insecurity, etc, etc, etc,,,), but they were too chickenshit to stand up for anything beyond their short-sighted political gain.

Yep.

Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, June 6, 2008 7:47 PM

dbl

RUE

Friday, June 6, 2008 7:47 PM

"The democrats had all the power they needed to put a halt to the war march (and the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo, and Homeland Insecurity, etc, etc, etc,,,) ..."

Except that they were in the minority. Strange how you forgot that, SergeantX. Or are you so desperate you'll post any lie to try and be right ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

GEEZER

Friday, June 6, 2008 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer YOU'VE worked for government. YOU know that no one gets to act on news-stories, only official reports.

The Civil Service part of government does have to work to rules and statutes, mostly those imposed by Congress. Anything Civil Service does you can find a regulation or law to back it up.

The Congress, on the other hand, works from leaks, polls, input from lobbys and contributors, reports they have commissioned which are so finely parsed as to always provide the answer they want, orders from their party leadership, and - most of all - whatever they think will get them re-elected. The 'rules' of Congress are arcane and often unwritten.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 6, 2008 7:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Except that they were in the minority. Strange how you forgot that, SergeantX.

But, didn't they have enough juice to derail the mess if they were truly up for a fight? Y'know, drag all that fascist s**t into the light & make Americans aware of the secret evil plans of the numbnuts?

?Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, June 6, 2008 10:15 PM

Quote:

Yes, there were WMD , and yes, the economy was doing very well...

Man, there's more smoke 'n' mirrors here than at a Criss Angel show! So Saddam managed to spirit away virtually ALL of his huge stockpile of WMD, and no one has any idea - or a scintilla of evidence - of where they went. And the economy SEEMED to be doing very well, propped up by MASSIVE debt-spending. Anyone can do that, for a short period of time. If I wanted to max out all my credit resources, I could be driving a new Ferrari and living in a penthouse - but it wouldn't last very long.

Smoke and mirrors, and nothing more. There's no substance behind it. In short, there's no "there" there...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

RUE

Saturday, June 7, 2008 1:03 AM

Chris,isall

Sorry for the late reply - I was busy at work and the website was a little too slow. (I wonder if anyone could use a cash infusion for a new server or sumthin' ? Maybe if there is anyone lurking who knows, they could reply ... ... anyway ...)

I find blaming democrats for what Bush does disingenuous, stupid and maybe even crazy. How does it make sense under any criteria ? And that's what irks me about the many posts - somehow, no matter what Bush does, democrats are to blame.

What's up with that ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Saturday, June 7, 2008 1:45 AM

Quote:
What pisses you off is that he's right. The democrats had all the power they needed to put a halt to the war march (and the Patriot Act, and Guantanamo, and Homeland Insecurity, etc, etc, etc,,,), but they were too chickenshit to stand up for anything beyond their short-sighted political gain. I suspect, sadly, that we'll have the next four years to see just what a much of spineless hypocrites they really are.

No Sarge, they didn't. As you SHOULD know by now the majority party controls the committees, and the committees control what comes to the floor. So there was not Democratic Party sponsored bills that ever came up for discussion. Democrats really WERE given a basement room to discuss pre-war intel, and the lights mysteriously went out. There were no contending investigations, no disagreeable Congressional press releases.

It's arcane, it's stupid, but that's the way it is.

And, if it came to a vote, the Democrats were in the minority... again, something you seem to have forgotten. In the 2002 House of Representatives there were about 435 members of which about 209 (less than half, if you can't do the math) were Democrats.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G02/House107.phtml?v=v In the Senate, there were 48 Dems, and 51 Republicans and 1 Independent, plus Cheney the tie-breaker.

Slightly more than half of the Dems voted against Iraq and whole bunch of other shit. Yeah, I agree with you: I would have liked to see the votes more like 51-49, not 75-25. A lot of Dems voted their cowardice. But compared to the Rethugs who voted in a solid block for everything that Bush wanted... in which Ron Paul (and sometimes Olympia Dukakis) stand out like a shining beacon... the Dems were better.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the press. Dissenting voices... and there were many... simply weren't given any air time. Why is that, do you suppose? Could it be that your favorite segement of the world... the capitalists... had some sort of alliance with the Bush administration???

Quote:
But, didn't they have enough juice to derail the mess if they were truly up for a fight? Y'know, drag all that fascist s**t into the light & make Americans aware of the secret evil plans of the numbnuts?

No, they didn't. They got frozen out of the committees, the power of the supoena, the press... even their own building. If ALL of the Democrats had gotten together on the steps of the Capitol building and raised holy hell, I doubt it would have made a ripple in the media. I knew a lot of Congresspeople were vociferously against the war, but I had to hunt for their opinions online, and the average person... meh... they get their news from TV.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, June 7, 2008 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Yes, there were WMD , and yes, the economy was doing very well...

Man, there's more smoke 'n' mirrors here than at a Criss Angel show! So Saddam managed to spirit away virtually ALL of his huge stockpile of WMD, and no one has any idea - or a scintilla of evidence - of where they went. And the economy SEEMED to be doing very well, propped up by MASSIVE debt-spending. Anyone can do that, for a short period of time. If I wanted to max out all my credit resources, I could be driving a new Ferrari and living in a penthouse - but it wouldn't last very long.

Smoke and mirrors, and nothing more. There's no substance behind it. In short, there's no "there" there...

Mike

Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal. The amount which could wipe out a small country could easily fit in the back of a small UPS truck. You're stuck w/ the mental image of "stockpiled warehouses ", as seen in Raiders of the Lost Ark , with crates among endless rows of crates. Sorry, the real world ain't like that.

And the economy WAS doing very well for several years, just not the roaring 20's style that most associate " good times " with. It was a Goldie locks economy, not too hot, not too cold. Just right. But conveniently, you and the Lefties have a short, hazy memory and view of the past, one which doesn't allow you to see things as they really were.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Saturday, June 7, 2008 2:26 PM

Here's a link to the actual report.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

edit to add:

Of particular note are these quotes.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next 5 years. He could have if earlier if he is able to obtain fissile materials in the outside market, which is possible - difficult but possible. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction."

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. These groups, in turn, could bring these weapons into the United States and unleas a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly."

And the author of those quotes?

Select to view spoiler:

Committee Chair Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, in the Congressional Record in Oct. 2002

Guess that's why on page 92 he noted...

"Statements made by members of Congress also were not evaluated. A bipartisan majority of the Committee agreed that these statements do not carry the same weight of authority as statements made by the President and others in the Executive Branch..."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 7, 2008 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
somehow, no matter what Bush does, democrats are to blame.

What's up with that ?

Er...the Golden Rule?

Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Saturday, June 7, 2008 6:44 PM

Bush Team Didn't Skew Intel
by Peter Huessy

Posted: 06/05/2008

I have worked in or with every Congress since 1970 and it is now clear that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi continue to preside over the worst Congress in living memory. This is particularly true in the most serious area a legislator must tackle: national security. No intelligence bill has been passed, now for the second straight year. The FISA reform bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, continues to be bottled up. And the prospect of a Defense Authorization bill becoming law is also bleak. On the most important duty they are sworn to do -- provide for the common defense -- the Democratic leadership is AWOL.

What they have produced is a new Senate Intelligence Committee report on the nature of the intelligence on Iraqi threats to the US, the nature of the unconventional weapons programs being pursued by Saddam Hussein, and whether this intelligence material justified the Administration’s decision to remove the Iraqi dictator from power.

As the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Senator Bond, and his colleagues Burr, Chambliss and Hatch have noted, the report -- highly politicized as it is -- concludes “Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser regarding a possible Iraq1 nuclear weapons programs were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates”, (p.15); “statements in the major speeches analyzed regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally supported by available intelligence”(p. 57); “intelligence reporting highlights more than a decade of contacts between the Iraqi Government and al-Qa’ida based on shared anti-US goals and Bin laden’s interest in unconventional weapons…” (p. 63); “statements…regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups…were substantiated by intelligence information”, (p.71); and “statements that Iraq provided safe haven for …al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorists…and regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qa’ida…were substantiated by intelligence estimates”, (p.71).

But the report, despite stating the obvious that intelligence conclusions prior to the liberation of Iraq were flawed, spends considerable time denouncing the idea that Saddam Hussein had any connection to either terrorism or terrorist groups, especially al-Qa’ida. The report concludes that Saddam never “considered using terrorist groups to attack the United States.”

According to documents revealed after the initial liberation of Iraq, and compiled by the Institute for Defense Analysis recently, and summarized by Eli Lake in the New York Sun, “In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to ‘form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.’ At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there. Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.”

Lake then discusses the reports view of Saddam and Al Qaeda:

“The [IDA] report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market…Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' …helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

Lake then points to the conclusions of two experts that agree on the import of the IDA report:

“Long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think

KWICKO

Saturday, June 7, 2008 11:49 PM

Quote:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal.

Wrong. You've made the exact same mistake O'Reilly made when talking to Scott McClellan. Imagine that... You now seem to think the term WMD applies ONLY to chemical and/or biological weapons, and discount nuclear programs completely. Nuclear weapons programs do indeed require huge infrastructure - huge enough that such facilities can generally be seen quite easily from orbit by even the simplest of spy satellites.

Have you forgotten the "smoking gun that would appear in the form of a mushroom cloud" that Bush referred to, or his false allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, both of which claims he used to sell his little war?

Once again, when the facts don't skew your way, you decide to simply move the goalposts and claim that what you were talking about then was never what you were talking about.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

KWICKO

Saturday, June 7, 2008 11:51 PM

Quote:
Mr. Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a Potomac, Maryland national security consulting firm he founded in 1981. During the Reagan administration he worked to secure the deployment of the INF and Peacekeeper missiles...

Sounds like he knows who's buttering his bread. Not a single reason for him to be biased or partisan, huh? ;)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, June 8, 2008 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
somehow, no matter what Bush does, democrats are to blame.

What's up with that ?

Er...the Golden Rule?

Chrisisall

No, repubs, dems doesn't matter

Americans are to blame

They are your chosen representatives, if they go off the reservation all of you own it... Particularly if they are allowed to keep doing it

Lets party like its 1939

AURAPTOR

Sunday, June 8, 2008 5:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal.

Wrong. You've made the exact same mistake O'Reilly made when talking to Scott McClellan. Imagine that... You now seem to think the term WMD applies ONLY to chemical and/or biological weapons, and discount nuclear programs completely. Nuclear weapons programs do indeed require huge infrastructure - huge enough that such facilities can generally be seen quite easily from orbit by even the simplest of spy satellites.

Have you forgotten the "smoking gun that would appear in the form of a mushroom cloud" that Bush referred to, or his false allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, both of which claims he used to sell his little war?

Once again, when the facts don't skew your way, you decide to simply move the goalposts and claim that what you were talking about then was never what you were talking about.

Mike

Sure, WMD does include Nukes, but there was never any real threat that Saddam currently HAD any nukes on hand, The issue was Chem/ BIo WMD's, aka " the poor man's nukes '. Iran is much further along than anyone ever dreamed Saddam might have been on nukes. No goal post being moved here, I'm just not engaging in revisionist history, as you seem to be doing.

There was no 'false' assertion that Iraq was TRYING to get yellow cake uranium from Niger, because HE WAS! Iraq got them for the nuclear reactor they built back in '80, which the Israelis destroyed, and it was only logical that they'd try to go back there again. But even if they weren't under way w/ a Manhattan project of their own, there's still the remote but dangerous possibility that a suit case nuke , from the old Soviet Union, could find its way into Saddam's hands. THAT was the very real and legitimate scenario most feared when discussing nukes w/ Iraq.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
No, repubs, dems doesn't matter

Americans are to blame

They are your chosen representatives, if they go off the reservation all of you own it... Particularly if they are allowed to keep doing it.

... and that pretty much sums it up. We can blame Bush, or Rove, Or Pelosi, - but it's the people who keep voting the republocrats back into office who bear the ultimate responsibility. Will we ever wake up? When will the partisan cheerleaders finally admit they've been played?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:34 PM

Quote:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal. The amount which could wipe out a small country could easily fit in the back of a small UPS truck.

Look pal, I'm tired of you blowing senseless cr*p outta your *ss all of the time on this board. You disrespect yourself and us with your moronic paranioa.

I worked with chemical weapons experts on a project, and I think I have a better idea than you do about what chemical weapons can... and can't... do. The "small country" of your imagination would have to be VERY small indeed... smaller than Los Angeles. Maybe the size of a sports arena, and even then you wouldn't be 100%. Look it up. Do some research before you blather online. Look into the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. If you can't figure it out, I'll help you with the math later.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:52 PM

Quote:
... and that pretty much sums it up. We can blame Bush, or Rove, Or Pelosi, - but it's the people who keep voting the republocrats back into office who bear the ultimate responsibility. Will we ever wake up? When will the partisan cheerleaders finally admit they've been played?

Of course we're being played, ya big boob! Do you think that everyone is stupid? (Oh yeah, that's right... you do. 'Cause nobody on this board is as smart as Sarge! I think we'd all agree to that!

) But you have to look behind the curtain... who's playing the players? 'Cause they ain't playin' their games for no reason. Follow the money, honey, and tell me what you find.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 8, 2008 4:24 PM

So 'Rapo, here's the math...

The Aum group managed to kill seven people with 10 liters of Sarin in the enclosed, crowded environment of the Tokyo subway. Given that LA metro area has 12 million people, at THAT ratio you'd need approximately 17 million liters of Sarin, and that's assuming that everyone is packed like sardines in a box. But since LA is a low-density city, you could safely mutliply that requirement by 10, meaning you'd need at least 170 million liters of sarin, which is... a whole helluva lot more than "a small UPS truck" and a whole helluva a lot less than "a small country".

Given your apparent problems with basic math, on everything from the economy to WMD to global warming.... do you need help balancing your checkbook?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

GEEZER

Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Aum group managed to kill seven people with 10 liters of Sarin in the enclosed, crowded environment of the Tokyo subway.

Actually, 12 people died, and 5,500 went to hospital, of whom 150 were critically to moderately ill.

Also:

"...many more people might have died if the weapons had functioned as Aum intended. Three of the bags brought onto the trains by the operatives were not punctured, meaning that not
all of the sarin gas was released. In addition, according to chemical weapons experts, the sarin
was impure and the system used to disseminate it was inferior."

"According to testimony from those arrested after the attack, preparations were rushed, due to an impending police raid. If group members had not been denied their request for more time to prepare the sarin, it might have been purer and resulted in far more than 12 deaths."

See pages 17 - 24 here. http://www.homelandsecurity.org/hsireports/reasons_for_terrorist_succe
ss_failure.pdf

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But even if they weren't under way w/ a Manhattan project of their own, there's still the remote but dangerous possibility that a suit case nuke , from the old Soviet Union, could find its way into Saddam's hands. THAT was the very real and legitimate scenario most feared when discussing nukes w/ Iraq.

[Sean Connery voice]
YOU DOLT![/Sean Connery voice]
ANYONE can be able to do that- why would SADDAM be more likely than anyone else of making it happen???
You are SO led by the nose...I wish a thirty year older you could back in time to slap yourself for all the nonsense that comes off your keyboard here.
[Sarek voice]Your logic is in question, where you politics are concerned.[/Sarek voice]

u-no-grokisall

FLETCH2

Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:22 PM

Humm, no weapon, not even a nuke, is going to give you a 100% casualty rate in a big city. In fact from a purely strategic POV that's not even desirable, look at Katrina or the really big SF quakes it's better to cause devastation and leave your enemy with the logistics problems of mass none fatal casualties, breakdown in social order and displaced people.

Imagine your UPS truck in Times Square, followed less than an hour later by a follow on attack in a couple of subway choke points. Casualty figures would be low, but forcing those commuters above ground would gridlock the city, adding to the problems for first responders.

WMD's have been from their inception a terror weapon, not a weapon that deals necessarily a big body count. I don't think it's helpful to assume they are something they are not.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, June 8, 2008 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Of course we're being played, ya big boob! Do you think that everyone is stupid? (Oh yeah, that's right... you do. 'Cause nobody on this board is as smart as Sarge! I think we'd all agree to that! )

I was wondering when you'd see the light.

Seriously though, why DO we keep falling for the same old crap? I see way too many intelligent people cynically, complacently, accepting the status quo. It looks to me like people would rather win than be right. Or left, as the case may be.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

GINOBIFFARONI

Sunday, June 8, 2008 9:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Of course we're being played, ya big boob! Do you think that everyone is stupid? (Oh yeah, that's right... you do. 'Cause nobody on this board is as smart as Sarge! I think we'd all agree to that! )

I was wondering when you'd see the light.

Seriously though, why DO we keep falling for the same old crap? I see way too many intelligent people cynically, complacently, accepting the status quo. It looks to me like people would rather win than be right. Or left, as the case may be.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

But is the win really a win, or just the making of a new set of enemies in a war without end.

The root causes of the conflict must be addressed, or really it is all for nothing, until the day that will come.

Lets party like its 1939

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 8, 2008 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

The root causes of the conflict must be addressed, or really it is all for nothing

In a world without conflict, greed would not exist.
Conflict is therefore inevitable as it stands now.

isall

AURAPTOR

Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal. The amount which could wipe out a small country could easily fit in the back of a small UPS truck.
Look pal, I'm tired of you blowing senseless cr*p outta your *ss all of the time on this board. You disrespect yourself and us with your moronic paranioa.

I worked with chemical weapons experts on a project, and I think I have a better idea than you do about what chemical weapons can... and can't... do. The "small country" of your imagination would have to be VERY small indeed... smaller than Los Angeles. Maybe the size of a sports arena, and even then you wouldn't be 100%. Look it up. Do some research before you blather online. Look into the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. If you can't figure it out, I'll help you with the math later.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

I'm not backing down in my views just because some jack ass claims this or that. I'm unimpressed. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't take a ware house of chemicals to do great damage. THAT was the fucking point, and if you're going to be a dick about it and claim " I worked w/ chemicals " , bfd! That don't change one god damn thing. Get over yourself.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But even if they weren't under way w/ a Manhattan project of their own, there's still the remote but dangerous possibility that a suit case nuke , from the old Soviet Union, could find its way into Saddam's hands. THAT was the very real and legitimate scenario most feared when discussing nukes w/ Iraq.

[Sean Connery voice]
YOU DOLT![/Sean Connery voice]
ANYONE can be able to do that- why would SADDAM be more likely than anyone else of making it happen???
You are SO led by the nose...I wish a thirty year older you could back in time to slap yourself for all the nonsense that comes off your keyboard here.
[Sarek voice]Your logic is in question, where you politics are concerned.[/Sarek voice]

u-no-grokisall

Only Saddam's USED them before, on his own people, pin head. It's being sensible, not being led around by my nose. A 30 yr older me would slap me for not sounding the alarm more, but he'd know that it's useless w/ the lot of you. Everything's fine in Happy Dreamy land, right ?

Mindless Myrmidons.

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Only Saddam's USED them before, on his own people, pin head.

I was referring to your NUKE IDEA, Braniac!

Quote:
It's being sensible, not being led around by my nose.

You might need to look up the meaning of that word, Einstein...

Quote:
A 30 yr older me would slap me for not sounding the alarm more, but he'd know that it's useless w/ the lot of you.

Tell me you've been drinking. Just tell me.

Quote:
Everything's fine in Happy Dreamy land, right ?

If you say so. I'm here on this planet.

"Your brain defies any known scientific laws in its infinite capacity to deteriorate."

isall

AURAPTOR

Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:47 PM

Of course, y'all are all happy and shiny, until the first nuke goes off. THEN the cries of " WHO WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL TO LET THIS HAPPEN?? " , and all manner of finger pointing stats from the Left. What makes this claim so predictable is that it's EXACTLY the sort of about face the Left has already done, over WMDs. Before the war, the Left was all " Saddam's bad, mmmmkay? We can't let him have his WMD programs, mmmkay"? 'Cause WMDs are bad. Mmmkay? "

Flipfloppersisall.

( Why are we still talkin' about this ? )

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, June 9, 2008 12:17 AM

Quote:
I'm not backing down in my views just because some jack ass claims this or that. I'm unimpressed. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't take a ware house of chemicals to do great damage. THAT was the fucking point, and if you're going to be a dick about it and claim " I worked w/ chemicals " , bfd! That don't change one god damn thing.

You're not backing down from your views no matter that they're shown over and over as wrong? It's not that I worked on a project related to chemical weapons that you should be responding to, it's the post AFTER that... yanno, the one demonstrating that you would need something like 170 million liters of Sarin to "wipe out" LA... that deserves thought.

It's one thing to have uniformed views, 'Rapo. Nobody can be held accountable for their views BEFORE they've been exposed to facts. But to deliberately cling to paranoid fantasy even after you've been given a chance to look at cold facts... well, THAT says a lot about you.

Quote:
Actually, 12 people died, and 5,500 went to hospital, of whom 150 were critically to moderately ill. "...many more people might have died if the weapons had functioned as Aum intended. Three of the bags brought onto the trains by the operatives were not punctured, meaning that not all of the sarin gas was released. In addition, according to chemical weapons experts, the sarin was impure and the system used to disseminate it was inferior."

Mmm, okay, so you'd need 80 million liters of Sarin to wipe out LA. Something like 20,000 tons. Still not "a small UPS truck" and still not a "small country". So your point is....?

In order to do much damage, you'd need a tons of chemical weapons. Vast amounts. Huge stockpiles. So while a chemical weapons attack would cause a great deal of panic it would frankly not cause much injury. The experts that I spoke with said it would be far more likely... well, that's another story, and I don't want to be detained in Gitmo so you'll have to fill that in for yourselves. But it has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 9, 2008 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Before the war, the Left was all " Saddam's bad, mmmmkay? We can't let him have his WMD programs, mmmkay"? 'Cause WMDs are bad. Mmmkay? "

Flipfloppersisall.

What flippin' bleedin' left are YOU on about, boyo? This part-time lefty was convinced WMD was a scam as soon as it came up. As were many others. So

that, man. Maybe psuedo Dems & Reps bought that s**t, but not me & mine.

No sheep hereisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, June 9, 2008 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I'm not backing down in my views just because some jack ass claims this or that. I'm unimpressed. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't take a ware house of chemicals to do great damage. THAT was the fucking point, and if you're going to be a dick about it and claim " I worked w/ chemicals " , bfd! That don't change one god damn thing.
You're not backing down from your views no matter that they're shown over and over as wrong? It's not that I worked on a project related to chemical weapons that you should be responding to, it's the post AFTER that... yanno, the one demonstrating that you would need something like 170 million liters of Sarin to "wipe out" LA... that deserves thought.

It's one thing to have uniformed views, 'Rapo. Nobody can be held accountable for their views BEFORE they've been exposed to facts. But to deliberately cling to paranoid fantasy even after you've been given a chance to look at cold facts... well, THAT says a lot about you.

--------------------------------.

Says more about that you that you'd cherry pick which facts you want to accept and discard the rest, purely to sooth your political paradigm.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Monday, June 9, 2008 12:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Before the war, the Left was all " Saddam's bad, mmmmkay? We can't let him have his WMD programs, mmmkay"? 'Cause WMDs are bad. Mmmkay? "

Flipfloppersisall.

What flippin' bleedin' left are YOU on about, boyo? This part-time lefty was convinced WMD was a scam as soon as it came up. As were many others. So that, man. Maybe psuedo Dems & Reps bought that s**t, but not me & mine.

No sheep hereisall

I meant Ted Kennedy, Sandy Berger , et al doing the flip flop, brainiac

YOU were convinced it was a scam because you WANTED it to be a scam, for purely political purposes. Sucks to be you, huh?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Monday, June 9, 2008 12:32 AM

Quote:
Says more about that you that you'd cherry pick which facts you want to accept and discard the rest, purely to sooth your political paradigm.

What is this? Nyah nyah nyah? Is THAt what youre reduced to?

Say, tell me again about how a small UPS truck filled with chemical weapons could destroy a small country, and tell me how that is at all factual!

And you accuse ME of twisting facts to fit my paradigm? HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

AURAPTOR

Monday, June 9, 2008 1:00 AM

In just one post, you've reassessed your EXPERT opinion that 170 million litres , no , wait...that's 80 million litres of Sarin would be needed to wipe out LA.

But of course, no one said EVERY LIVING PERSON has to die for a country , or a city to be decimated, right?

Let's just make it clear, that no one , Dems or GOP, wanted Saddam to do THIS to any other people of the world, including his own.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 9, 2008 1:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

YOU were convinced it was a scam because you WANTED it to be a scam, for purely political purposes.

Look, get this into one of the three brain cells you use to comprehend & discuss this subject with: I don't care WHO does the right thing, I'm just as willing to cheer on someone I don't like (which, at this point is, well, pretty much all the politicos) if they're doing it, but I DO demand they do it. Your man Bush screwed the pooch on this one, and you ain't ballsy enuff to admit it- that's that FACT, JACK.

You're not just being a dousche here, but a DISPOSABLE one.

Why don't you go be a pretzel-maker, you're so good at twisting things...

Dissing Chrisisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, June 9, 2008 1:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
In just one post, you've reassessed your EXPERT opinion that 170 million litres , no , wait...that's 80 million litres of Sarin would be needed to wipe out LA.

But of course, no one said EVERY LIVING PERSON has to die for a country , or a city to be decimated, right?

Let's just make it clear, that no one , Dems or GOP, wanted Saddam to do THIS to any other people of the world, including his own.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Hey, Winston Churchill ordered the use of gas on Kurds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

If Saddam was evil ( yes I agree he was ) then that would also make Churchill an evil bastard as well right ?

Shall we inspect / take away Britains WMDs

after all they have a history of using gas on civilian populations as well.

Lets party like its 1939

GEEZER

Monday, June 9, 2008 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Mmm, okay, so you'd need 80 million liters of Sarin to wipe out LA. Something like 20,000 tons. Still not "a small UPS truck" and still not a "small country". So your point is....?

I never said anything about "UPS truck" or "small country". Just noting that Sarin - something pretty low on the frightfulness scale - effectively used (which the Japanese attacks weren't) could still cause mass casualties.

Quote:
In order to do much damage, you'd need a tons of chemical weapons. Vast amounts. Huge stockpiles. So while a chemical weapons attack would cause a great deal of panic it would frankly not cause much injury. The experts that I spoke with said it would be far more likely... well, that's another story, and I don't want to be detained in Gitmo so you'll have to fill that in for yourselves. But it has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

A chemical weapons attack using vehicle-transportable amounts (a semi could carry 30 tons easy) could easily kill as many as the 9/11 attacks. Something like VX, much more effective than Sarin, would easily do the job. Biological agents, which I assume you're coyly hinting at, could do much more damage.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Monday, June 9, 2008 2:41 AM

BTW, if you look at the conclusions in the Committee report about the Administration's comments on biological and chemical weapons you see:

"Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information"

"Conclusion 3: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well (as) additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Monday, June 9, 2008 2:41 AM

Churchill, hell - WE in the US have a history of it as well. Chemical, biological, nuclear - we're an equal-opportunity offender!

Biological - As in, "Gee, Native Americans, we're so sorry we stole your land. Won't you accept this blanket loaded with smallpox as our apology?" Sure, that's ancient history, but what about...

Chemical - Agent Orange, anybody? Anyone? Oh yeah... aren't that many of those guys still alive out there. And yes, we - as in OUR government - used that poison on our own troops in Viet Nam. And to make matters worse, we - as in OUR government - told those poor bastards that it was harmless, when WE - as in OUR government - knew full well that that was utter and complete bullshit.

But I'm sure to guys like 'Rap, that's all "ancient history", too. What a difference 10 years makes in your frame of reference...

And without getting into a long, drawn-out argument over the benefits and drawbacks of nuking Japan, it would do us well to remember one fact: In the history of the world, there has been only ONE nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another.

'Rap: you maintain that it only takes a small truck full of chemical weapons to do massive damage. True enough, but somehow, somewhere, you have to manufacture the things that go into that truck. THAT takes logistics and manufacturing capability on a somewhat larger scale than you're talking about.

And you've contradicted yourself yet again by claiming that, on the one hand, the Dems didn't want to do anything, then on the other hand claiming that they were yelling just as loudly as the Thuglicans about how we had to do something. I know you guys love the term "flip-flop", but you really better watch it. Your guy McCain has flip-flopped so goddam much that he's even voted against legislation that he authored!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 9, 2008 2:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

If Saddam was evil ( yes I agree he was ) then that would also make Churchill an evil bastard as well right ?

Well duh, NO, because our Presidents & Prime Ministers & things can do no wrong, OBVIOUSLY....(unless they'z Democratz)

AUisall

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, June 9, 2008 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Churchill, hell - WE in the US have a history of it as well. Chemical, biological, nuclear - we're an equal-opportunity offender!

Biological - As in, "Gee, Native Americans, we're so sorry we stole your land. Won't you accept this blanket loaded with smallpox as our apology?" Sure, that's ancient history, but what about...

Chemical - Agent Orange, anybody? Anyone? Oh yeah... aren't that many of those guys still alive out there. And yes, we - as in OUR government - used that poison on our own troops in Viet Nam. And to make matters worse, we - as in OUR government - told those poor bastards that it was harmless, when WE - as in OUR government - knew full well that that was utter and complete bullshit.

But I'm sure to guys like 'Rap, that's all "ancient history", too. What a difference 10 years makes in your frame of reference...

And without getting into a long, drawn-out argument over the benefits and drawbacks of nuking Japan, it would do us well to remember one fact: In the history of the world, there has been only ONE nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another.

'Rap: you maintain that it only takes a small truck full of chemical weapons to do massive damage. True enough, but somehow, somewhere, you have to manufacture the things that go into that truck. THAT takes logistics and manufacturing capability on a somewhat larger scale than you're talking about.

And you've contradicted yourself yet again by claiming that, on the one hand, the Dems didn't want to do anything, then on the other hand claiming that they were yelling just as loudly as the Thuglicans about how we had to do something. I know you guys love the term "flip-flop", but you really better watch it. Your guy McCain has flip-flopped so goddam much that he's even voted against legislation that he authored!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

I was saving the US occupation of Puerto Rico for a rebuttal, but hey

Lets party like its 1939

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 9, 2008 4:58 AM

Hey folks, we're forgetting about 'necessary evils' here, as The Operative would say, we don't kill women & children....unless we HAVE to....

Bush & Cheney are just trying to make a better world. As were all of the great leaders of this planet.

I'm so sick of the collateral damage mentalityisall

SIGNYM

Monday, June 9, 2008 5:34 AM

Quote:
A chemical weapons attack using vehicle-transportable amounts (a semi could carry 30 tons easy) could easily kill as many as the 9/11 attacks.

Prolly. But it's not a small country. I realize that's not YOUR point, but you came to Rapo's defense so I assume you were defending his point.

Quote:
Biological agents, which I assume you're coyly hinting at, could do much more damage.

Nah, I wasn't hinting at bioweapons and neither were they 'cause they were chem weapons guys. But if you want to think about effectiveness, bioweapons are potentially better because they reproduce themselves, the little buggers.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

AURAPTOR

Monday, June 9, 2008 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey folks, we're forgetting about 'necessary evils' here, as The Operative would say, we don't kill women & children....unless we HAVE to....

Bush & Cheney are just trying to make a better world. As were all of the great leaders of this planet.

I'm so sick of the collateral damage mentalityisall

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists, and instead are all outraged at our response.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Monday, June 9, 2008 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I realize that's not YOUR point, but you came to Rapo's defense so I assume you were defending his point.

Nah. I just thought you were understating the danger of chemical weapons as much or more as Auraptor was overstating them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GINOBIFFARONI

Monday, June 9, 2008 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey folks, we're forgetting about 'necessary evils' here, as The Operative would say, we don't kill women & children....unless we HAVE to....

Bush & Cheney are just trying to make a better world. As were all of the great leaders of this planet.

I'm so sick of the collateral damage mentalityisall

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists, and instead are all outraged at our response.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Read some history, since the end of WW1 the Western powers have fumbled and manipulated things to the point they are the root cause of the situation.

The British created Iraq, and pitted the ethnic groups against each other to maintain control,

If it wasnt for Eisenhower Iran would be a democracy and the Islamic revolution wouldn't have happened.

Israel the biggest mistake the UN even made

Lebanon, Syria, Egypt...... a long list of greed and impulse driven errors

" But we never answered the question "Why?" Why are we as a people worth saving? We still commit murder because of greed and spite, jealousy, and we still visit all of our sins upon our children. We refuse to accept the responsibility for anything that we've done, We decided to play God, create life. And when that life turned against us, we comforted ourselves in the knowledge that it really wasn't our fault, not really. You cannot play God then wash your hands of the things that you've created. Sooner or later, the day comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore "

Lets party like its 1939

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 9, 2008 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists

Hitler was into Islam?? And Attila the Hun?? And Pol Pot? Wow, I was wholly unaware of the breadth of the Islamo-fascist influence...

AU, at least Dr. Frankenstein acknowledged his creation, we act like we had nothing to do with ours.

You put the bi in bipedisall

CITIZEN

Monday, June 9, 2008 1:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal. The amount which could wipe out a small country could easily fit in the back of a small UPS truck. You're stuck w/ the mental image of "stockpiled warehouses ", as seen in Raiders of the Lost Ark , with crates among endless rows of crates. Sorry, the real world ain't like that.

Actually it is. Sure people talk about a single drop of this or that being enough to kill a thousand people, but if you were to drop a single drop in amongst a thousand people, you'd probably find no one actually suffered any ill effects. Sure in theory the amount that could fit in a UPS truck could kill everyone in a small country, but in reality, due to dispersion and other factors, the UPS truck would probably carry enough to kill a large village or town, best case scenario (or worst, depending on your view point).

CITIZEN

Monday, June 9, 2008 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hey, Winston Churchill ordered the use of gas on Kurds

Actually, there's no evidence I know of that gas was used during the Kurdish uprising, just that it was suggested.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 9, 2008 4:20 PM

Quote:
Bush & Cheney are just trying to make a better world. As were all of the great leaders of this planet.-Chrisisall

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists, and instead are all outraged at our response.-Rapo

Rapo, do you really think the cause of all of this begins and ends in Islam? There are millions of Muslims out there who have never picked up a gun, and never will. In addition, there are a LOT of people out there who aren't Muslims who hate the USA with a passion that equals a jihadism's. (Say, did I tell you that Chinese stood up and cheered when the towers fell? If I did, it bears repeating.)

I agree with you that we are surrounded by enemies. But we're not going to win only by killing... all that does is create more enemies. The way to win is to turn enemies into friends or at least neutrals, and the way to do THAT is to win the war of ideas.

But IF we're going to win the war of ideas we have to bring to the table something other than "Now we install your government and by the way give us your land/ oil/ copper/ tantalum/ shipping lanes/ -fill in the blank-" which has pretty much been our MO since 1776 when we started our own little pogrom of ethnic-cleansing, WWII excluded. Doesn't it strike you as notable that the two nations who became reasonable allies after we devastated them in war (Germany, Japan) were the two nations that we chose to rebuild, and that every nation after that suffered from our intervention and became an enemy? Don't you think there is an important historic lesson to be learned from a couple of centuries of experience? I know it's scary to let go of the paradigm of empire: We see, we need, we take... which (in the minds of many) translates to a better life for us. People don't want to give up that feeling of superiority because what would happen to our lifestyle? But that is not an idea that we can bring to the table and expect others people to swallow willingly. Nor is it necessary for our well-being.

You have to realize that (1) We Americans do NOT have the greatest lifestyle in the world. Our paradigm has yielded for us a relentless sense of personal and national insecurity and (2) Only an unimaginably few (less than 10,000 people in the entire world) actually benefit from constant churning of war.

So, to be specific: Islam is a religion with a sense of mission. Sacrifice is lauded. And it is based primarily is peasant cultures where it forms the backbone of social organization. In addition, many Muslims living in the ME feel imperiled by the West, and with good reason since we've installed leaders in just about every nation there. You cannot come to the table with the idea that (1) You'll kill all jihadists or that (2) You'll corrupt them with our Western ways of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, because both will generate a tremendous backlash.

I have several concepts to bring to the table BUT they can only be presented by a nation that is internally uncorrupted and also disinterested in ME oil, and I'm afraid that excludes us at the present time. Most people in the ME know that their leaders are corrupt and are siphoning off the greater part of wealth. It's an endemic problem that has nothing to do with the USA (although we take advantage of it in SA, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE etc.) because even Iran has that problem. What people might respond to is a call for - not democracy but - transparency. It's part of their religion to have virtuous leaders, and right now people feel that they have to choose between corrupt anti-American leaders or corrupt American poodles.

That's just the beginning of my idea, but I think you can see where that's going. But the only way we can pull this off is if we wash our hands.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Monday, June 9, 2008 4:26 PM

Quote:
Nah. I just thought you were understating the danger of chemical weapons as much or more as Auraptor was overstating them.

It's actually pretty difficult to get chemical weapons to work. They're mostly fairly heavy liquids, and getting them to disperse effectively is quite a trick. So again, not gonna say too much on the topic. Just FYI.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 9, 2008 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

We Americans do NOT have the greatest lifestyle in the world. Our paradigm has yielded for us a relentless sense of personal and national insecurity

Signy, there's NO WAY that peeps like AU will cop to insecurities of any kind- the very nature of their defensive posture on the subject prevents it. From recognizing it even.

Wait for it.
The tidal wave of "Maybe YOU'RE insecure, not ME, my government is making sure we're all okay, blah blah blah..."

isall

KWICKO

Monday, June 9, 2008 6:24 PM

Quote:

I agree with you that we are surrounded by enemies. But we're not going to win only by killing... all that does is create more enemies. The way to win is to turn enemies into friends or at least neutrals, and the way to do THAT is to win the war of ideas.

Siggy: What you have to remember is that when you're talking to folk like 'Rappy, you're talking to someone who ACTUALLY BELIEVES what Reagan said when he claimed "we don't negotiate with terrorists." This country has a long history of doing exactly that - NEGOTIATING with terrorists. One man's terrorist is another's Contra, or Sandinista, or Freedom Fighter, or Mujuhadin, or Tamil Tiger, or East Ulster Para, or...

You get the idea. We DO negotiate, with terrorists or anyone else, if it will save us money and/or lives. We always have, and we're doing it now.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

AURAPTOR

Monday, June 9, 2008 7:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists
Hitler was into Islam?? And Attila the Hun?? And Pol Pot? Wow, I was wholly unaware of the breadth of the Islamo-fascist influence...

AU, at least Dr. Frankenstein acknowledged his creation, we act like we had nothing to do with ours.

You put the bi in bipedisall

Now you're sounding ridiculous again. Slavery is a sin of the past, it's not OUR sin. Under no circumstance what so ever should WE , today, be forced to bare the brunt of events which occurred decades or 100's of years ago. Folks seem to forget they have but 1 life in which to conduct their affairs w/ others on this planet. How you do that is up to you, not your forefathers.

We can agree that wrongs were committed in the past, but then to say " Ok, that means you're allowed to slaughter 100's of folks today, as pay back ", that lacks any sort of logic or reason.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 9, 2008 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Now you're sounding ridiculous again. Slavery is a sin of the past, it's not OUR sin.

WHAT? Who's talkin' about SLAVERY??? I'm talking about the U.S.-haters we've created in just MY lifetime!!! Places we effed with, put leaders of our choice into, fascist regimes we've backed in favour of democracies...WE MADE SADDAM, understand that, Socrates??? Go ahead, engage 20 or 30 more brain cells for this discussion, K?

Quote:
logic or reason

Maybe they're in your other pants....

Chrisisall

AURAPTOR

Monday, June 9, 2008 7:50 PM

We didn't make Saddam. That guy made himself. And the discussion was on about how ENGLAND had screwed up Iraq, 80 yrs ago, and some how folks are attributing that to somehow US reaping what we sow, which is absurd, on any level. I only brought up slavery to point out the absurdity of such arguments about how WE screwed things up. Not so. Those screwing w/ us NOW are doing so on their own volition, not our " meddling ".

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 9, 2008 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We didn't make Saddam. That guy made himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_-_United_States_relations
In February 1963 Qassim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Provided with information by the CIA, the Baath Party hunted down suspected communists. They then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned them down. Many suspected communists were killed outright.[1] An exact toll is not known, but accounts indicate that among the victims were hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers, and other professionals. These numbers also include military and political figures. Saddam Hussein himself was said to have participated in the killings.[4] There was an exchange of information between the Ba'ath and the CIA; for the first time, the United States was able to get models of certain Mig fighters and tanks made in the Soviet Union. That was what the Ba'ath had to offer the United States in return for their help in eliminating Qassim. [5]

The United States also sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the United States had backed against Qassim and then abandoned. Soon, Western corporations like Mobil, Bechtel and British Petroleum were doing business with Baghdad -- for American firms, their first major involvement in Iraq.

But it wasn't long before there was infighting among Iraq's new rulers. In 1968, the CIA encouraged a palace revolt among Baath party elements led by long-time Saddam mentor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who would turn over the reins of power to his ambitious protégé in 1979.

Uhhh, you were saying, AU...?

Quote:
US reaping what we sow, which is absurd, on any level.

Like getting shot at with some of the stuff we gave/sold to peeps????

You truly astound me, AU.

You see- I'm an idiot, and I know this stuff. What's preventing YOU???

isall

CITIZEN

Monday, June 9, 2008 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We didn't make Saddam. That guy made himself. And the discussion was on about how ENGLAND had screwed up Iraq, 80 yrs ago, and some how folks are attributing that to somehow US reaping what we sow, which is absurd, on any level. I only brought up slavery to point out the absurdity of such arguments about how WE screwed things up. Not so. Those screwing w/ us NOW are doing so on their own volition, not our " meddling ".

The name of the country is Great Britain, not 'England'. Beyond that, the current situation in Iraq is far more complex than 'Britain did it', and contemporaneously has at least as much to do with American imperial ambitions in the region as British. The Ottoman Turks, before the British, had more to do with setting the various Arab tribes against each other, than the British ever did. The British used the pre-existing animosities to reduce the effort of keeping the region under control.

If anything, the break up of the Ottoman Empire 'screwed up' Iraq 90 years ago. But then Saddam Hussein didn't help, and there's a great deal of evidence to suggest he was put in to power with the help of the CIA, and he was indeed a strong American ally for nearly thirty years, until he invaded the wrong country. It wasn't the British that helped Saddam to power.

If the people of the Indian Subcontinent hated the British, I mean hated us like the people of the Arab world hate America, I could understand it. I certainly wouldn't say they were doing it off of their own 'volition' and that it had nothing to do with our 'meddling', because obviously it would have everything to do with our meddling. The fact that they don't, I think has something to do with our differing approaches to the situations. The British understood the politics and people of India, that's how they took control of a continent many times their size and population, Americans do not really understand the people or their politics of the Middle East. You don't try to either. The problem with America is that you are isolationists playing at globalism, you're too inward looking and ideological. You assume things are going to go the way you want, which leads you to be totally blind sided, and say things like "why do these people hate us?", when they don't.

You can see this dynamic in Iraq. Prior to the invasion, the overly optimistic and idealogical assumption seemed to be that American troops would march in to Baghdad, and the people of Iraq would greet them as saviours with garlands of flowers, and Iraq would become a shining beacon of Democracy over night. Needless to say that didn't happen. So the ideological expectation shifted to "any day now", and "getting better all the time".

It's not absurd to say the US is reaping what it has sown, you don't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and you don't build a super power without breaking a few heads, and creating a few enemies. America didn't become a superpower because Americans are inherently better and more worthy than other people, you didn't become the richest country in the world because it was preordained by God, Jesus or the Easter Bunny. You became a super power in a similar way to how Britain did in the 19th century, you won a major war and capitalised on an advantageous position, to take from people in a less advantageous position what you wanted. Britain played the softly softly hands off game to empire for a long time too. It wasn't until the Indian revolt that Britain started taking more open and direct control of it's imperial possessions (ignoring of course it's 'white colonies', which have somewhat of a parallels with the US in examples such as Hawaii). America is building and presiding over an Empire, you've just not admitted that fact yet, and you don't run an empire without making enemies. But you do make them, they don't spring fully formed out of the clean air, simply because they're jealous of what you got. They're jealous of what you got, because some of it used to be theirs, and they hate you becaus

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE