Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-23-2004, 01:12 AM   #26
Quichon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Cabilis
Posts: 248
You yell at Bush for not having patience to ram it through the UN like he should have.

Had he waited, you would have yelled when Sadam *DID* finish enough weapons of mass destruction and manage to smuggle one of them into the US and set it off. You would have been the first to demand his head when we have another 9/11.

And you call US hypocrites?

Sadam was a rabid weasel. He needed to get put down. He used WMD on his OWN PEOPLE for crying out loud. The only reason why he is not as terrible as Hitler is because he got pimp-slapped before he had a chance to build a serious power base. If Hitler had been stamped on instead of acquiesed to in the early stages, he could have been stopped just as easily. It wasn't until Poland got invaded that Europe got the idea he wasn't going to stop. By that time, his Blitzkrieg was already under way and within a year half of France was rolled over.
And yet, for all the evils Sadam did, the UN did NOTHING. And Bush finally has enough of Sadam playing shell games with the UN Inspectors and tells the UN to go sit on a cactus and goes in anyways. And the UN does nothing still. If nothing else, you would have figured that the UN would have been upset with Bush for telling them off, but have they done anything? No.
__________________
Master Quichon

Swifttail of 60 seasons
Quichon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 04:11 AM   #27
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
gojirra monk this is the definition of the term


Neoconservative:

An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s

Dont know about you but im proud to have conservative social political and economic values. Dont see how its much of an insult personally.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 04:44 AM   #28
Adarian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 98
Default .

First off I hate Bush. I hate WHY he does things but i do not neccesarily disagree with what he does.

I am all for a first strike kind of stance towards threats to the U.S. IF their IS a true threat to the U.S.. Saddam was not as much of a threat to the U.S. as a multitude of other countries/groups and thus should not have been targeted as such till those were handled.

As for the atrocities he commited. They are horendous yet I do not see why the U.S. must spend our time money and blood to stop such things when almost every single other country in the world sits in their nice posh seats at the U.N. and does nearly nothing. Everytime something like that happens it is almost always the U.S. that foots 95% of the bill and the troops to handle the situation.

It reminds me of a little story about a wealthy man with his big house on a big hill and who can provide a great living for his family. However, every day someone comes to his door or calls asking for money for this or that new charity and being a good man he gives out every single day. He donates his time as well. Then the day comes when his bank calls and tells him he is broke and has no money and his house is taken away for sale and his family ends up on the streets cursing his name for not being there and not providing for them.

The moral of that story is to make sure you can and are taking care of you and your own before trying to take care of everyone else. We have MANY more problems here within this country to worry about than what is going on in Iraq or Rwanda or wherever else. Deal with the in house problems FIRST. How many people are murdered every day in the US? How many people are assaulted or robbed or raped every single day? How many people go to school to a system who doesn't care if they learn or not? How rampant is the drug problem in the US?

Those type of problems should be much much more in our governmental mindset than what happens in a foreign country. What happens in 50 years when we are on the fourth straight generation of declining intellectual status? Or when our crime rate gets high enough that our statistics for crime looks like 1990 Russia. We need to cut the shit and start dealing with our own problems first not the problems of other countries.
Adarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 05:17 AM   #29
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
"They are horendous yet I do not see why the U.S. must spend our time money and blood to stop such things when almost every single other country in the world sits in their nice posh seats at the U.N. and does nearly nothing."


And I guess if you saw a little girl getting raped and your neighbor was not doing anything you would turn face and leave it as well, so you didn't risk getting the crap beat out of you, I mean hey, take care of yourself first? What kind of crap is that? We are a world leader, and if you are in that position and you ignore the atrocities going on around you, you aren't much of a world leader. Alot of nations in the UN aren't big enough to do anything, that is why the US is called on. Too much of the "take care of myself attitude" is why Clinton didn't notice the build up of Al Queda and the changing global situation in the first place.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 07:08 AM   #30
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Quichon
Had he waited, you would have yelled when Sadam *DID* finish enough weapons of mass destruction and manage to smuggle one of them into the US and set it off. You would have been the first to demand his head when we have another 9/11.
Nice little hypothetical. However, we KNOW that Saddam had no WMD programs developing weapons of the sort Bush stated he had. THAT is a FACT. Not a hypothetical, as you present. So, had we waited, we would have likely gotten resolution without the cost of thousands of lives.

Originally Posted by Alauradana
And I guess if you saw a little girl getting raped and your neighbor was not doing anything you would turn face and leave it as well, so you didn't risk getting the crap beat out of you, I mean hey, take care of yourself first? What kind of crap is that?
What a load of bullshit! Why aren't you hauling your ass of to the Congo and stopping the rapes going on there, Alaur? Huh?! Oh yeah, because you like to just talk smack and not really deal with issues.

Preemptively striking another soverign nation is nothing at all like not trying to help an individual in dire need.

Oh, BTW, blaming Clinton for the build up of Al Qaeda is idiocy. You may as well blame him for the build up of greenhouse gasses while you're at it.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 11:05 AM   #31
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Gee Luri keep repeating the same old crap. They found WMD years ago, they were there. You keep pretending they never existed. Blah blah blah, why must you repeat the same lousy thing over and over? I even posted the documentation from the UN and still you don't believe they were there. Maybe if one hit you on the head ...nah even then your stupidity would prevail.


As far as countries in Africa, why don't we try comparing Apples and Oranges? Do you think you can handle one country the same as another? In Africa there are still many different tribes dispersed throughout the countries. You are not dealing with one central government mass murdering its citizens. You are not dealing with civilized people. These are people living in areas that are so outlying that they don't have any of the modern conveniences. What are you going to do, go wipe out all the tribes? Much different when you have one regime doing it.

Iraq is responsible for bringing itself to the worlds attention. You always seem to forget that they invaded another country. You are always screaming that we invaded Iraq, HELLO, why doesn't it bother you that Iraq invaded Kuwait?? You act as if Saddam is your butt brother, the man did no wrong. A crack house can carry on for years if it doesn't interfere with anyone and draw attention to itself. If the inhabitants of that crack house start messing with their neighbors, they then draw the attention of the police. Do you understand that? Can you comprehend that? There are way too many countries for the US to continually monitor to make sure atrocities aren't being commited but when it is thrown in our face, the right thing to do is to act, unlike you sicko dems who believe you should stick your heads in the ground and pretend it isn't happening. We can't stop all the atrocities in the world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't help anyone at all. What a wacked concept of life you have. I hope I never have to encounter a wuss like you in my daily life.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 11:33 AM   #32
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
Luri did you read David Kays report? If you did it specifically says they were in continued violation of UN sanctions and their intelligence officers even today are destroying evidence of the programs. Where you get your "facts" from is sure a mystery to me.


Here is an excerpt from it:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

∑ A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

∑ A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

∑ Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

∑ New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

∑ Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

∑ A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

∑ Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

∑ Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

∑ Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use -- are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.

And of course the whole report can be read on that bastion of conservatism: CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 12:15 PM   #33
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Crimson, I have read the report. Do you know what this means, "WMD-related program activities"? Good job on equivocating "WMD program" with "WMD-related program activities". They are not at all the same.

BTW, when Kay was pressed on key issues he raised, he had to conclude that there wasn't any evidence of WMD or WMD programs and that we were all wrong. In other words, the report you provide doesn't support your assertions, so says the author of the report himself. See below...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50817F63C5C0C758EDDA80894DC404482

ABSTRACT - David A Kay, recently resigned chief weapons inspector for CIA, says American intelligence agencies failed to recognize that Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after first Persian Gulf war in 1991; says they did not detect that Iraq's unconventional weapons programs were in state of disarray in recent years under increasingly erratic leadership of Saddam Hussein, and they did not know that Hussein insisted on self-directing projects that were not vetted by anyone else, allowing wily scientists to fake weapons programs and pocket money themselves; says Iraq did attempt to revive its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2000 and 2001, but never got as far toward making bomb as Iran and Libya did; says Baghdad was working to produce biological weapon using poison ricon until American invasion last Mar; says Tariq Aziz, former deputy prime minister, said after his capture that Hussein had become increasingly divorced from reality during last two years of his rule; Kay says CIA missed significance of chaos in Iraqi leadership; photo (L)
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001846317_weapons29.html

WASHINGTON ó The former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq issued a broad critique of U.S. intelligence gathering yesterday, saying the U.S. government was simply "wrong" to conclude before the war that Iraq was maintaining major stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 12:18 PM   #34
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by Alauranda
You keep pretending they never existed.
Alauranda, that is your misunderstanding of what I have written. Of course Saddam had WMD at one time. I don't know a single person who denies that. You are just missing the FACT that the containment of Iraq and the UN disarmament had worked. See the above posting.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 12:29 PM   #35
Vulpes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Big Wonderful Wyoming
Posts: 140
Brilliant.

We know after the fact that Iraq didn't have WMD? I bet you can predict the past almost 100% correct, and pick all super bowl winners from '88 to 98' right Luri?

Saddam did NOT let the weapons inspectors do their job. He 'implied' that he still had WMD's. If he had just conceded to the UN's resolutions, we could have gone in, maintained strict inspections and avoided it all, correct?

Do this once. Go into a bank, hold one hand behind your back, imply that you have something you shouldn't held there, and refuse to show it. Would a reasonable person assume you had something harmful back there? I bet they would.

Vulpes
Vulpes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 12:38 PM   #36
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
says Iraq did attempt to revive its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2000 and 2001, but never got as far toward making bomb as Iran and Libya did; says Baghdad was working to produce biological weapon using poison ricon until American invasion last Mar



How is this not trying to continue programs ? This is exactly what he was trying to do, and would still be continuing to do if he was still there. How do you not see that ?
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 12:54 PM   #37
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Vulpes: You are missing one obvious fact. The UN weapons inspectors asked for more time to continue inspections. Bush didn't give them the time saying that it had run out and he launched his attack. You are ignoring facts in order to maintain the Bush vision of the war. For what purpose I don't know.

Crimson: I quoted relevant passages from my links. Did you bother to read them in context? Kay said our intelligence on WMD was wrong. He proved that "Iraq had all but abandoned its efforts to produce large quantities of chemical or biological weapons after first Persian Gulf war in 1991". The BS Bush fed to US was that Saddam had sufficient stockpiles of WMD to be a direct threat to US national security. That, in fact, he was an imminent threat to our borders. "Working to produce"... "attempt to revive" is not even a weapons program, let alone the capability to be an immediate threat. You are just buying into the political pablum spoon fed to the people where Iraq is concerned.

Bush should have allowed for the UN weapons inspection to continue before he pulled them out so he could launch his attack. Another year would not have made a huge difference and we would have found out what Kay learned without the loss of thousands of lives.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 12:58 PM   #38
Vulpes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Big Wonderful Wyoming
Posts: 140
No Luri, YOU are missing the point. Read this very carefully.

If Saddam had just allowed the inspectors in and have full access, ALL of these points would have been moot.

Nothing else has to be said. Argue all you want.

Vulpes
Vulpes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 01:02 PM   #39
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Vulpes, are you familiar with the concept of sovereignty? There isn't a country on the planet that would surrender to forcible inspections without a fight. The US would certainly never agree to a forcible inspection.

You can schuck and jive all you want about how Saddam should have allowed full inspections when the fact is, he did do that towards the end. Bush pulled out the inspectors who were asking for more time. That is a FACT you are choosing to ignore. Again, for what purpose I don't know.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 01:14 PM   #40
Vulpes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Big Wonderful Wyoming
Posts: 140
I am not sure if you are just reaching for excuses, or really just don't think.

If the US had just had its ASS KICKED and the country that beat us let us survive on the condition that we allow weapons inspections, you better believe that we would.

he did do that towards the end
Brilliant again. So if you KNOW you are going to get your ass kicked, then agree to conditions AGAIN that you have already agreed to ~ 14? times in the last 12 years, and then changed your mind as soon as the imminent threat is gone, we should give you more time. Bullshit.

Vulpes
Vulpes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 01:21 PM   #41
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Vulpes, as an American I deplore the idea that our country could ever be occupied by an invading force.

If that did happen, I don't think there is a patriotic American standing that would cooperate with the enemy. So do you really think we would be standing by and allowing inspections?

BTW, Saddam had contacted the UN in August of 2002 asking for the weapons inspectors to return. They were finally allowed to return eventhough the Bush administration was against it... Bush thought the inspections wouldn't work.

The point is, that Iraq was a militarily contained country that had severe economic sanctions imposed upon it. Another year of cat and mouse over inspections would have just made Iraq weaker and we would have had UN inspectors scouring the country side finding things.

We can never know what the inspectors might have found, because Bush is trigger happy.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 01:30 PM   #42
Vulpes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Big Wonderful Wyoming
Posts: 140
So do you really think we would be standing by and allowing inspections?
Blah blah blah, spin spin spin. The Iraqi people were the ones that didn't want us inspecting them? How strange, I thought it was the ruling government, a dictator named Saddam. Apples and oranges. Would the US people allow another country to inspect 'presidential palaces' of a person most of the populace HATED. fooking right we would, if denying access meant certain war, AGAIN and an ass kicking, AGAIN for no reason at all.

Now, let me say this ONE MORE TIME for the short bus riders:

If Saddam had allowed weapons inspections, THAT HE ALREADY HAD AGREED TO, then all your weak-ass points are moot. End of story, tired of arguing with someone who has to make up excuses instead of just agreeing to that FACT.

Vulpes
Vulpes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 01:36 PM   #43
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Vulpes, did your kindergarten teacher piss in your milk at lunch time today? I didn't offer any excuses. In fact, the points I have made are very accurate about behaviors of leaders who rule soverign states. I supose you know nothing about the Treaty of Versailles and how it was an embarrassment to most Germans, for example?

NM, you are a brick. I tried hard to have a dialogue without flaming you, but some folks are just so fucking retarded the best thing to do is just flame them from the first. Carry on Corkie.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 08:18 PM   #44
crimsonedge
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 767
Lurikeen,

You obviously didnt even read your quoted article because all I did was copy and paste exactly what you had posted and it specifically says :

Iraq did attempt to revive its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2000 and 2001, but never got as far toward making bomb as Iran and Libya did; says Baghdad was working to produce biological weapon using poison ricon until American invasion last Mar

Did you not read DID "attempt to develop nuclear weapons"? Did you read was "WORKING to produce biological weapon using poison ricon" ?

These were all in violation of the UN mandates. Did you read the my link which says they were working on and acquiring parts for long range missles ? All of it is there, its all fact its all violation of the UN sanctions.

How is it that you cant produce a FACT that he wasnt doing these things. Its widely regared NOW that he doesnt have large stores of nuclear biological or chemical weapons, but remember before the war it was largely regarded by EVERY country that belongs to the UN that he did in fact have large stores of these weapons and programs that needed to be disposed of.
crimsonedge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 08:25 PM   #45
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Crimson, I did read the articles I quoted from. I also answered your argument above, let me just cut and paste the answer....

Originally Posted by Myself
"Working to produce"... "attempt to revive" is not even a weapons program, let alone the capability to be an immediate threat. You are just buying into the political pablum spoon fed to the people where Iraq is concerned.
The Bush administration is not the UN. Bush can't act to enforce UN mandates without the express consent of the Security Council. So, even if Saddam was not in compliance, it wasn't Bush's call alone to go to war. Bush chose to go it alone (aka "Coalition of the willing"). In order to do that, he had to sell the American people a strong dose of bullshit to convince us that Iraq was an imminent threat to our borders. "Attempting to develop..." or "Working to produce..." are not imminent threats to any country.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 08:45 PM   #46
Misty
Do Not Disturb
 
Misty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,066
It's for his dad?
__________________
Originally Posted by Drysdale
"Fair enough. I don't agree with anyone all the time."
Originally Posted by Davek
"*blink* *blink* *blink*
*bliiiink* *bliiiink* *bliiiink*
*blink* *blink* *blink*
[fixt]

Mistyglen 68 Half Elf StormWarden (retired)
ex-Mystic Blue, ex-Sundered Heart, ex-Heart of Fenris
Redback's stuff
Redback 72 WoodElf Ranger (Lucid Devotion)
Misty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2004, 09:11 PM   #47
Alauradana
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,460
Quote Lur: "Bush didn't give them the time saying that it had run out and he launched his attack."

And then you babble on by saying "another year would have made a difference."

How in the heck would another year had made a difference when Saddam had strung everyone along and kicked out inspectors over 12 YEARS! HELLO--another year, it would have been another year that Saddam stated that we were spying on him and kicked everyone out again. You honestly believe after 12 years of disobeying the UN resolutions that he was suddenly going to say, "Ok guys, I will come clean now and not play anymore games". If your kid keeps hiding things from you do you give him year after year to come out with the truth? If you do, you are an idiot. Bush is not an idiot. Nor is Congress when they voted to attack Iraq--dear god Luri, don't ever play poker, someone would be able to bluff you out of every cent you have--you are the most gullible person on the planet earth if you believe that given another year Saddam would have complied.
Alauradana is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.