|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 4, 2005 12:32:27 GMT -8
Where's the Ranger when you need him? Well this can get lenghty. First, you have to define WMD's. Bush and his gang knew that Saddam did not have Uranium-based Nuclear Weapons or other Weapons that would give hime the ability to attack the US. You think the Isreali's would let Saddam obtain real weapons of mass destruction. The fact remains that Bush knew that Saddam was not an "imminent threat" to the US, and that was one basis for my argument. How is this "incorrect"? We had inspectors there to liimit his ability to develop a nuclear program, which takes years to develop even if have all the materials. Yeah French intelligence is just as good as ours. And btw, our intelligence agencies are pretty bad. It seems like every decade people are clamoring for the CIA to get reformed. Let's be honest the KGB put us to shame. Other countries including those in the region, did not think that Saddam was an "imminent threat" to thier security. Man we did a good job of painting Saddam. Too good of a job... Ah, It's right in front of you. Also, Clinton Bombed AFGANISTAN.... Why Not?... There was serious debate about attacking Iraq BEFORE Afghanistan. Without the War ini Iraq, there is no way Bush would have gotten re-elected. He let Bin Laden escape from the Mountains in Afghanistan, and domestically the country didnot agree with him. Approval Ratings Go Up and Down. Bush 1 had a pretty goog rating for Dessert Storm, but it happened to early and everyone's attention span went back to domestic issues. It's the Economy, stupid. Bush also had political reasons to decieve us. Then the question is Why Now and Why Iraq. A lot of leaders commit attrocities (see the PM of Israel). If Bush would have took this to the Senate without the WMD hysteria, the resolution's fate would have been up in the air. And Clinton didn't have an easy time getting "limited" miliitary authorization for Bosnia I don't know how to respond to this. Can Anyone respond to this... -CB
|
|
Tex
Scoring Assistant
"Why so serious?"
Posts: 183
|
Post by Tex on Mar 4, 2005 18:05:57 GMT -8
Sigh . . . unfortunately, The Ranger is busy with the game of life -- this means a) work, b) party, c) drinking or d) all of the above. Please, leave your message at the beep, or a Manhattan on the rocks at the door, and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
[glow=red,2,300]PLJ[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 8, 2005 7:10:04 GMT -8
"First, you have to define WMD's. Bush and his gang knew that Saddam did not have Uranium-based Nuclear Weapons or other Weapons that would give hime the ability to attack the US. You think the Isreali's would let Saddam obtain real weapons of mass destruction. The fact remains that Bush knew that Saddam was not an "imminent threat" to the US, and that was one basis for my argument. How is this "incorrect"?"
Okay, my definition of WMDs is... "weapons of mass destruction!" While nuclear weapons are certainly included under the definition, there's a reason that Bush kept saying that Iraq had WMDs and not "nuclear weapons" and that is that there are WMDs other than nukes. Bush never believed nor claimed that iraq had nuclear weapons. One "imminent threat" was that Sadam could use BIOLOGICAL or CHEMICAL weapons of mass destruction, which can be more destructive than hydrogen bombs. Those are the WMDs that leaders of nations were told Iraq possed by intelligence agencies around the world. Another way that Sadam could have been an imminent threat to the U.S. was by harboring terrorists that were just that--an imminent threat. When Bin Ladin officially "declared war" on the U.S. (I'm sure you heard about that) his declaration that he would kill people in the U.S. in a holy war was not a declaration of hostility to christians, western nations, etc. It was against the U.S. and only the U.S. Terrorists who fall into his camp have one target, and if Sadam were friendly with them, then their violent plans for the U.S. could have been facilitated.
Now, I'm not interested in getting into an argument about whether the war was justified or not. As I've said before, that may depend on the outcome. My original point, and one that I still stand by, is that Bush did not KNOWINGLY mislead the American public into believing that Iraq had WMDs (again, not nuclear weapon, but WMDs). He honestly believed that they did, thanks to the CIA (which has not always been the best intelligence agency, granted). that's all I'm saying.
"Without the War ini Iraq, there is no way Bush would have gotten re-elected"
If you think that Bush got re-elected because of the War on Iraq you're dead wrong. That war has done nothing for his popularity. The first time people began to oppose the war on terror in significant numbers was with the war on iraq. The war in iraq was one of Kerry's bigest criticisms of Bush (even though Kerry himself supported the war at the outset). The only reason the election was so close was because of the war. Ask anyone who doesn't like Bush. What's their main problem with him? The war in Iraq. That war has done nothing good for Bush.
-chris
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 8, 2005 15:52:41 GMT -8
Just to put certain things on perspective, don't always believe what you read or hear. Remember Watergate? The blame was placed elsewhere. Remember Chile? Nicaragua? Oh no, Reagan didn't secretly fund the contras, did he?!
All I'm saying is, in politics, there is a history of cheating the public and giving false information when they think it's needed. Hey, the war in Iraq may be the best decision ever, but chances are the Bush administration did try to deceive the rest of the world. U.N. inspectors aren't doofuses or payed under the table by arabs. They didn't find anything. If Saddam had attacked the U.S., the entire world would be set against him. It is ridiculous to even consider him a threat at any time.
What's funny is that, when the world is at stake, the U.S. and other powerful nations fall behind on this kind of information. You know, like when Cuba acquired nuclear warheads and was willing to commit suicide in an attempt to destroy America. Yup, that was funny.
|
|
Tex
Scoring Assistant
"Why so serious?"
Posts: 183
|
Post by Tex on Mar 8, 2005 22:45:25 GMT -8
There is no clear cut support for this war in the country. Talk to anybody on the street, and it seems to be 50/50. As for the U.N. inspectors, Hans Blix never found anything. So how can anyone say the U.N. thought they were there? For godsakes, even our own weapon's inspectors within the U.N. team circa '98 told Bush to wait. "There's no defininitive evidence of anything being there." It was right there on CNN. But what did THAT inspector know, he's only American . . . oh . . . wait . . . OOPS. Republicans, btw, were NOT all for it. Many had serious reservations about it that were only confirmed post WMD fiasco. In addition, as fiscal conservatives, many Republicans are AGHAST at how the deficit has exploded. The rest, IMHO, are in denial. I mean 20 years of screaming at democrats for this sort of this thing, and then, only a few years after you fixed the problem (under a democratic president, mind you), it's suddenly okay to drain the coffers? What the hell? Despite this illusion of unity, there's a major schism between old fashioned Reaganite Republicans, Mcain-esque moderates (like me) and the fricken' neo-cons who have completely hijacked this party. Not that I have any love for Democrats -- who've completely imploded in their own lazy self complacency after their 40 year honeymoon (which rode mostly on FDR's and Kennedy's name, to begin with).
As for what SHOULD'VE been done, it's too late to second guess. I don't like screwing with Iraq. I'd rather we'd have solved the Palestinian crisis first by demanding both Arafat AND Sharon leave office . . . but it's a moot point now.
However, I think Bush would've been better off just telling it like it is: "Listen, I'm sick of this uppity Middle East crap. I say we go in there, kick some heads, install some people that like us, and then pat ourselves on the back and say job well done. It's not like I'm gonna touch North Korea or Iran, cause they actually scare me. China's got too many sweatshoppers workin' for us already. And Africa? Screw that! I saw Black Hawk Down. No way, Jose. So . . . let's see . . . what about Saddam Hussein? Yeah, nobody gives a $#it about Saddam Hussein! He's an a$$hole -- Arabs don't like him, Al-queda don't like him, the world don't like him, and pop don't like him either. It's a cinch! Sure, I'll get crap from the U.N. -- but the U.N. is the U.S. of US anyway, so who cares? It's not like they give a crap about the Iraqi people to begin with -- they just wanna keep playing backhanded backgammon with food, oil, and missles. At least WE'LL look good. This way, we get less "terrah," more oil, and a bunch of happy Iraqis who'll think we're the best thing since spiced cous-cous and they'll tell their friends! And those friends will tell other friends. Then we'll all be able to sit on a street corner in Baghdad, eating McCous-Cous at the local McDonald's and waxing philosphical about the latest Mel Gibson movie to hit the big screen. God Bless America."
Seriously, I think if he put it like that, the American people would've been just as convinced. Naive? Hell yes. Honest? Sure.
And yes, the dirty little secret about intelligence that most nations really suck at it. Just look at the nonsense that went on during the Cold War. Russia really believed we were capable of building something like the Star Wars defense system when we can't even figure out how to make a toilet seat for a C-130 that doesn't cost $50,000? Ha! Stupid Ruskies. Not that we're much better . . . relying on the old "exploding Cuban in the cigar box" trick. That's ONE way to get Castro to quit smoking, I guess.
[glow=red,2,300]PLJ[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 9, 2005 4:48:49 GMT -8
[/i][/quote] But his Admistration sure did try to insinuate this (see the Colin Powell UN speech, see Pres. Bush's State of the Union speech, see Bush's other comments...) I'm no a biologist, but how is this possible? And please try not bring up exceptions to the rule. If anybody is going to get Smallpox, it's not the guy dancing in the streets of Iraq..., it's gonna be a White-blooded American. Also remember the word "imminent"... Even if Saddam were crazy enough to hoar himself out to 1000 americans, I'd would take years for the AIDs virus to kill them Americans (and by that time Saddam would be dead). ;D Let's get realistic here. After the Gulf War, Saddam couldn't even attack Kuwiat, even if he wanted to. The reason why American politicans said Saddam was evil was because, it was in our national interest to do so... Asuuming that we're able to install a strong puppet as Iraq's Leader, no one is going to argue that it's better that Saddam is not in power. The arguments are over the reasons given for the War, at the moment the war occured. As Hillary would say: "It's the pre-emption stupid" ;D Ah, brings back the memories. Make Monkey face, stare into camera... "We will make no dinstinction between Terrorist and those who harbor them." Mostly every counrty harbors terrorist. Terrorism did not start with the Arabs, and they aren't even good at it. Israel, Saudia Arabia, Indonesia, etc are filled with Terrorist. If Bush wanted to go after Terrorism that were an "imminent threat," he had to look no farther than Saudia Arabia... So, the Bin Laden attacks that did not occur in the US did not happen? If, If, If... Where is the evidence. If China teams with the EU and Russia and Israel then the US could be in trouble. So let's... Just because the results turn out to be good, doesn't mean that the action was justifiable. If I go around robbing people, so I can get rich (My Operation Monetary Freedom), and I succeed, it doesn't mean that my acts of robbery were justifiable... My MAJOR qualm isn't with Bush's Madness, it is with the Method to his Madness. I'm afraid that time will prove you wrong. Look at the info that has already leaked out from the Administration. It just like Cinton wagging his hand, Reagan claiming that we did't sell Arms.. etc. Hey Chris, naivity isn't an excuse. Bush is no honest Abe, Are you going to argue that? Let me try to clear up some confusion here. Without the War on Terror, chances are good that Dubya would have been a one-termer. Do you remember the atmosphere before 9-11. Yeah, Bush's ratings were good after Afghanistan, but Bin Laden was still at large, and the bickering about the best ways to reduce Terrorism were about to start (Homeland Security Office, 9-11 Report, New CIA director, etc, Didn't Bush intially oppose all of this?). Without Iraq Bush had no upper-hand in the Terror Debate. It was a brillant political move. If Clinton could have found a reasonable way to oust Saddam, (and get Monica out of his lap) he would have done it. It Bush-1 wasn't concerned about the problems that would have occured with the ouster of Saddam, he would have done it. The painting had already started. Politically the Dem's had to support a War Resolution, unless they wanted to be ousted like the The Senator, who left behind his legs in Vietnam. The only prominent Dem Senator that I could recall having the Courage to vote against the Resolution was Paul Wellstone (MINN), and looked what happened to him. If Iraq turned out well, Bush could say, "Hey it's my war". If Iraq turned out bad, he could say, "hey he supported it too. What... he's a Flip-flopper." If Kerry opposed the war intially, was able to present a tough on terror approach, and was not dogged by the Vietnam Vet's who hijacked his chances, things would have occued differently, but Kerry could not have done this because of the War in Iraq. We disagree...The war (we're already there) was one of my lesser-ranked problems with the man... -Carlton
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 9, 2005 13:41:22 GMT -8
Today, People don't even know that the Iran-Contra scandal existed... Oliver North even has his own TV show on FOX, appropiately tilted "War Stories"... And people still don't believe that Reagen had anything to do it (he's free of blame along w/ the VP)... Reagan even went on TV and basically said that everyone else was right and he wrong, "We did trade them Arms..." Shows you how quickly Alzhemier's can develop...
-Carlton
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 11, 2005 7:45:05 GMT -8
I guess I'm outnumbered here as far as whether bush really thought there were WMDs I guess most of you think that he did. I've never read anything really definitive on the subject. I guess I'll have to check some news magazines or something... as far as biological or chemical weapons being potentially more deadly than nuclear weapons, this much I'm sure about. there's a possibility that smallpox it could be used as a weapon. The U.S. hasn't been doing the smallpox vaccine for over twenty years now. I'm not sure about Britain, but smallpox would be very deadly if introduced into American society at this point. It is technically a dead disease, but still exists in labs, etc. Every society into which smallpox has been introduced where it wasn't present before has been completely decimated by it. Take the indigenous people in the Americas after the Spanish arrived. The spanish had smallpox in their society, and every now and then someone would get it and probably die, but the natives had never had contact with it. It started to spread about 20 years after the spanish arrived and by about 80 years later scholars estimate that 90-95% of the indigenous population of the Americas was dead. Take the Roman empire. When smallpox was introduced there 7,000,000 people died. A nuclear bomb could do that kind of damage if dropped on a big enough city, but a viral weapon would have to be contained before it could spread too far, and if it infected a large portion of a large city it could spread and end up killing more than a nuclear weapon would. Japan also lost half of its population when smallpox was introduced there. Smallpox is by no means the only virus capable of this kind of mortality rate. Similar mortality rates apply for multiple diseases on the condition that the disease is alien to the society in which it is being released. Historically, a potentially deadly disease unleashed on a people who have no immunity to it has killed, on average, 25-50% of that peoples population. so yeah, chemical and biological weapons can be more deadly than nuclear ones. --Chris
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 11, 2005 9:06:53 GMT -8
As long as it's not affiliated with something like FOX, the Weekly Standard, or something like The Nation, you'll be alright.... You might want to check out the recent books by Paul O' Niel, Richard Clarke, or Bob Woodward. It never hurts to read unless it is.... It looks like you've been watching to much Dateline... This sounds like one of those exceptions to the rule. Do you know where the last remaining samples of smallpox are? We have to get realistic here.... If you would said something like Malaria or AIDS, I would have taken your comments more seriously ;D Hmmm. Contemplate This... -CG
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 14, 2005 9:15:18 GMT -8
Yeah, I saw your atomic bomb explosion picture the last time you posted it I stand by my previous historical evidence. Yes, an atomic bomb makes a very large fireball, but it's nothing compared to the release of a highly contagious airborn virus that people have no immunity to. Smallpox is just one example. I don't know where any samples are, do you? There are other possibilities as well, though it's been a while since my microbiology class so nothing comes to mind.... Malaria and AIDS don't seems like they would be very effective biological weapons, since both require introduction into the blood stream and can't exist in an airborn state (unless you consider all the mosquitos carrying malaria an airborn state . How could a terrorist use these diseases as a weapon? Malaria can be treated quite effectively (one of my former room mates had malaria, and it wasn't life threatening). As far as AIDS goes--we don't need terrorists to try to use it--even if they could--because we seems to be doing a fine job of spreading that one ourselves. --Chris
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 14, 2005 10:05:40 GMT -8
You people are very disappointing. Smallpox? Malaria? Do you have so little faith in terrorism? Don't you think a highly specialized lab could create new viruses by simply mutating the hell out of their contemporaries?
How strikingly unoriginal you all are.
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 14, 2005 15:05:51 GMT -8
What can I say, I am a doubting Thomas. Jesus, I need to see the Wounds... Were not talking about good old-fashioned American Revolution terrorism; We're talking about Arab Terrorism. Hasn't Goliath already crushed these guys... I'll bring up a Chris Rock joke that was displayed on Fox, when the Right was going after him . Rock said, "Im not afraid of Al-Queda. I'm afraid of Al-Cracker." How many Arab Terrorist have access to high-security, specalized labs? If anything we should be afaid of the Stephan Hadley (?) types. Come on, Arabs aren't the smartest terrorist in the World. If they got ahold of Smallpox, they would kill themselves first. I'm not saying that terrorism is not a threat, but let's have some perspective here. I fear Nature more than I do Arab terrorist in a lab. The chances are high that Mad Cow Disease, Bird-flu Disease, The flu, influenza, HIV, the Ebola virus, and so on, weren't created in labs (unless you believe in those conspiracy theories). We can't even find a cure for a simple HIV virus, how the heck are they going to create a super virulent airborne virus... My only point was to make fun of the OMG (said in an Indian Accent) hysteria about terrorist using biological weapons. Unlike Christopher, I think chemical weapons pose more of a realistic threat from terrorist than biological ones. All you gotta do is drop some Agent Orange in the water supply... The FOX version www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110599,00.html The CNN version edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/15/agent.orange.suit/-Carlton
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 14, 2005 15:35:50 GMT -8
So now see the results... People don't have immunity from radiation either... I forget where the smallpox samples are... I read about it awhile ago in Newsweek, but it might have been in some lab, in either the US or UK, and that's it. I afraid that my knowledge of bio is somewhat limited, but creating a "super virus" from stratch is someting that's hard to do. That's my point. If a terrorist is gonna use a boilogical weapon, chances are that it's gonna be a familar one, like Anthrax or one of those viruses that habituate at your local fast food restuarant. The HIV suggestion was more of a Saddam joke, and Malaria was just used to highlight how most common viruses are treatable. Danny Elfman had Malaria too, how did you roommate get it?... HIV/AIDS is indeed a very unfortunate virus... And HIV also proves my point. Apparently there is a stronger strand of the HIV virus that is spreading through certian communities. Chances are that this strand wasn't created in the lab. If we're gonna fear biological weapons, we should fear Nature first. An Arab terrorist isn't going to give you the Flu, it's gonna be your trusted roomate who gives it to you... And yes, the Flu has killed before (see 1918) -Carlton PS: If you know of any common virulent airborne viruses, tell me because bio isn't my strongsuit.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Mar 14, 2005 21:28:28 GMT -8
I'll bring up a Chris Rock joke that was displayed on Fox, when the Right was going after him . Rock said, "Im not afraid of Al-Queda. I'm afraid of Al-Cracker." How many Arab Terrorist have access to high-security, specalized labs? If anything we should be afaid of the Stephan Hadley (?) types. Come on, Arabs aren't the smartest terrorist in the World. If they got ahold of Smallpox, they would kill themselves first. I'm speaking from the Iraqui war apologist point of view, here. According to them, Saddam had all the access in the world to chemical plants and specialized biological warfare labs that were secretely financed with oil money to produce the most malefic weapons the world has ever seen! Of course, nobody found any of that, but the POSSIBILITY was there! Yeah. The same odds you and I have of being struck by lightning at the same time. It's worth noting that the same engineers who built Saddam's secret labs are the same ones who devised the blueprints to Saddam's spider hole. Right on. There are some misconceptions here. It's my belief that the HIV virus was created because of faulty lab work. The evidence points to the French (hey!) scientists who where working on a smallpox vaccine in Africa. Because of its recent conception and its similarity with... monkey HIV (forgot the name, I'm so sorry), I'm willing to believe this was a major screw-up in science. Also, HIV isn't a simple virus. It's one bad mother, I tell you. Mad Cow isn't a natural threat. Cows don't feed from other cows in nature. That's just not right. So, again, that was us. The flu, however, you're correct to point out. Also worthy to mention is how remarkable it is that this very common illness is indirect proof of evolution (it's not "alive" as we know "alive") and yet hordes of mad cows still denounce the theory. ;D On the ScoreBoard, Josh pointed a few facts of how unlikely and relatively unmanagable using chemical weapons would be. Fun read. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Carlton the Barbarian on Mar 15, 2005 6:01:02 GMT -8
Ok, I'll chime in now. It is a fact (aka everyone agrees) that Iraq is the new hotspot or hotzone, in the "War against Terror."...Just imagine if the terrorists in Iraq now, where able to join forces with Saddam and use the materials from his chemical labs and trailers to attack Westerners. If hundreds of thousands of Mexicans can cross the border, imagine what 19 terrorist funded and supplied by Saddam Hussien could do. If Saddam was still in charge like Dean, Kerry, ant the rest of the Democrats wanted, this would have already happened. But now that Saddam is ousted, freedom is on the march, and we don't have to worry about that. Look at what's happening in Lebanon... Rally on!
God's lightning can strike at any time. Didn't Adams and Jefferson both get struck by death on the same day- that glorious day of indepedence- July the 4th, the day that Tyranny was defeated by the noblest of means. And the reason why nobody "found any of that" in Iraq was because "it" had been smuggled over to the other side of the "axis of evil" (in those pipelines built for oil)...
But where were these same people when we were clamoring that it "only takes one bullet"...
Now as much as I would love to blame the French again, especailly considering how they started the whole Vietnam mess and because of thier unending support for Saddam, HIV is the fruit-croussiant above thier heads...
A lot of dangerous viruses, bacteria, etc. were introduced from other species... Look at Ebola, or the sick birds in Asia. It is very well-known fact that men will stick thier Peter into anything, and because of this I'm willing to believe that the French had anything to do with HIV. Now if the intelligence is wrong, maybe it's time for the US to liberate France again.
God works in mysterious ways. He didn't give immunity to everyone, He just simply attacked thier immune system... What's so complex about that? And isn't it beautiful how God save lives. Case in point, the young lady in Atlanta, who used her relationship with the Christian God to overcome a Raping Madman. Amazing!
We didn't point a gun to the Cow's head, and tell him to eat it. He had free will, on his Animal Farm, to choose whether or not to eat the cow. The cow ate another cow because he listened to some other Cow named Darwin, and because it tasted sinfully good. Whatever happened to non-personal responsibility?
Congratulations, there is NO direct proof of evolution. It's only "intellectual design (?)." Over 40 percent of Americans (I think that's the recent poll number) can't be wrong... And the President bears NO resemblance to a monkey. That's a fact you and your evolution buddies should "indirectly" Scope out.
What makes a dirty bomb go bang... or rather what can make a dirty bomb go bang bang, with a bigger bang... CHEMICALS- try exposing Mg to air, it will burn up your evolution books.
-C
|
|